† Living In These Mad, Mad, Madoff Times: Everyone knows that a $2,800 Louis Vuitton satchel going for $100 is a fake. But Chinese counterfeiters are now reaching further down the fashion food chain and have begun selling knock-offs of Ugg boots and  Kooba bags at half price to fool bargain-hunters into thinking they are getting a great deal, reports The New York Times:

 

The shift in the counterfeiting industry, which costs American businesses an estimated $200 billion a year, plays to recession-weary customers looking for downmarket deals, the authorities say. And it has been fueled in part by factories sitting idle in China. Almost 80 percent of the seized counterfeit goods in the United States last year were produced in China, where the downturn in legitimate exports during the recession left many factories looking for goods - in some cases, any goods - to produce. …

 

The answer is increasingly knockoffs of lesser-known brands, which are easy to sell on the Internet, can be priced higher than obvious fakes, and avoid the aggressive programs by the big luxury brands to protect their labels, retail companies and customs enforcement officials say. …

 

The traders in mid-price fakes are employing another new trick: by pricing the counterfeits close to retail prices - which they can do when the original product is not too expensive - they entice unsuspecting buyers. Any savvy shopper, for example, knows a Louis Vuitton bag selling for $100 cannot be the real thing. But when NeimanMarcus.com, an authorized retailer for Kooba bags, sells them for $295, and a small Web site sells them for $190, a deal-hunting consumer could think she has scored a bargain. (She hasn’t. The $190 bag is a fake.)

 

† Media Irrelevancy – A Self-Inflicted Wound: Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum contends that WikiLeaks validated the role of journalists to explain news to people:

 

If you were under the impression that we no longer need news organizations, editors or reporters with more than 10 minutes' experience, think again. The notion that the Internet can replace traditional newsgathering has been revealed as a myth.

 

To see what I mean, try reading this: "At 1850Z, TF 2-2 using PREDATOR (UAV) PID insurgents emplacing IEDs at 41R PR 9243 0202, 2.7km NW of FOB Hutal, Kandahar. TF 2-2 using PREDATOR engaged with 1x Hellfire missile resulting in 1x INS KIA and 1x INS WIA. ISAF tracking #12-374."

 

Did you get that? I didn't, at least not at first. I understand it somewhat better now, however, because the New York Times helpfully explains on its Web site that this excerpt from one of the WikiLeaks documents describes a Predator drone firing a missile at men who were planting roadside bombs.

 

How about this? "At 1635z TF 2Fury reported a Green on Green event at the Giro DC, VB 3591 6240. An element at the Giro DC reported that that two of the OPs IVO of the Giro DC were under SAF and DF attack." That one is tougher, but fortunately the Guardian informs us that it's an excerpt describing a shootout between units of the Afghan police.

 

Reading through the documents, you do begin to pick up the code. FOB is a forward operating base; BDA is a battle damage assessment. Yet after a while, even the summaries don't make that much sense. Was that Predator operation crucial? Was that Afghan police battle ordinary friendly fire, or did it reflect a larger conflict? Here the Times and the Guardian can help a little, as they have reviewed the documents, passed them quickly by experts and done a bit of comparing and contrasting. This is because Assange, despite his insistence on the value of raw data, knew perfectly well that the public wouldn't be able to make much of this stuff and gave the documents to three news organizations in advance.

 

Um, Ralph Peters, for one, could have deciphered the jargon and analyzed the raw data and put it into historical context. So could any number of bloggers who have military backgrounds. And note that the journalists at the papers that were given the documents by Julian Assange had to consult military experts, albeit “quickly.”

 

And in today’s Brave New World, anyone can be a journalist – even someone who plays one on TV. The New York Times reports that William Shatner interviewed D.C. sniper Lee Boyd Malvo for his new series on the Biography Channel, “Aftermath” and got a piping hot scoop:

 

“There were supposed to be three to four snipers with silenced weapons,” he told William Shatner in a phone interview from prison. …

 

[T]he “Star Trek” actor and Priceline negotiator … found out that the snipers claim to have committed dozens of other shootings, some with co-conspirators. …

 

Given the news value of the Malvo interview, A&E, which owns Bio, decided to turn it into a one-hour special that will be shown on A&E Thursday night. It shared the transcript of the telecast with reporters in advance. …

 

Given that the Malvo interview is news, does Mr. Shatner consider the interviews a form of journalism? “If it’s a form of journalism I’d be very proud to carry that banner,” he said.

 

The Stiletto doesn’t recall reading about co-conspirators in The WaPo, even though most of the sniper attacks occurred in its backyard.

 

† What It's Like To Be Sheriff Joe: Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (AKA "America's Toughest Sheriff") has a $1 million price on his head – literally his head, reports KSAZ (Channel 10-Phoenix):

 

A man who wants to remain anonymous says his wife received the text message [in Spanish] Tuesday evening. It also included an international phone number and instructions to pass the message along. …

 

Although the Sheriff has received numerous death threats in the past, they believe this threat is credible because of its timing. …

 

The Sheriff's office says investigators are trying to trace exactly where the text message came from, but because it did originate from an international number, that will be difficult too.

 

Authorities believe the text message was sent by someone associated with a Mexican drug cartel.

 

Meanwhile, CNSNews.com reports that Paul Babeu, another AZ sheriff who's been in the news lately, complains that "Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help":

 

Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

 

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

 

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law. …

 

According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.

 

The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.

 

† Mortgage Loan Modification Less Than Advertised: The San Francisco Chronicle has a cautionary tale for folks who want to buy a foreclosed home in the hopes of getting a good deal on a bigger home or an investment property:

 

Roberta and Randall Strand took $97,606 out of their paid-off house to buy a foreclosed home at a courthouse auction. Five months later, they found out they actually bought the second mortgage, and that the bank planned to foreclose on the first mortgage, leaving them out in the cold. …

 

They spent more than six weeks and $13,000 fixing up the house, which they described as in terrible shape with broken windows and no plumbing, light fixtures or appliances. …

 

In April 2010, a notice was posted on the home's front door that it would soon be auctioned at a courthouse sale - just like the one where the Strands had bid.

 

"Apparently, unbeknownst to us, Wachovia sold us a worthless second mortgage that was part of a piggyback loan made to the" previous owners, Roberta Strand said. "Both loans were originated, signed and recorded on the same date. Rather than foreclose on both loans at the same time, Wachovia chose to foreclose, market and sell the worthless junior lien, purporting it to be the real property, which is what we purchased."

 

Wells Fargo, which owns Wachovia, said in a statement: "We believe the foreclosure auction of the property on which the Strand family bid was done correctly, and are confident the legal resolution to this matter will bear that out." …

 

Jason Menke, a spokesman for Wells, said: "When these properties are sold at auction, they're without covenant or warranty. It's the responsibility of the person bidding at auction to fully understand exactly what they are bidding on and what the implications are. Bidding on property at foreclosure auction is a very different process from a standard home purchase."

 

† Art Does Not Imitate Life (third item): This article should provide further explanation to non-NYers why rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments are worth going to court over. Note the monthly rental fee of the apartment at the heart of this saga that Mick Jagger's ex-wife went to great lengths to hold on to. The New York Law Journal reports:

 

A referee has ordered the ex-wife of Rolling Stones icon Mick Jagger to pay more than $700,000 in back rent and attorney fees to her former landlords after she lost a bitter five-year battle to keep her rent-stabilized apartment. Special referee Howard G. Leventhal ordered Bianca Jagger to pay the landlords, Katz Park Avenue Corp. and Diamond 530 Park Avenue Owner LLC, $246,468 for the "fair market use and occupancy" of the apartment, plus 9 percent annual interest from 2005.

 

Leventhal also ordered her to cover the legal bills of the landlords' lawyers: $206,276 for Pryor Cashman's fees and $137,550 for Belkin Burden Wenig & Goldman's.

 

The July 22 ruling followed a 2008 decision by the New York Court of Appeals holding that Jagger and other foreign nationals in the country on tourist visas were not eligible for rent-stabilized units.

 

Now you know why hogging four of these below-astronomical-market-rate apartments for his personal and professional use (as a campaign office) is amongst the 13 charges of ethics violations Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is facing.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (eighth item, Is Obama Already A Lame Duck?): Before Election Day, Dem candidates of little faith will deny The One thrice – and he accepts that he cannot let this bitter cup pass from him. Instead of campaigning for Dems battling Repubs to hold on to their seats in Congress, President Barack Hussein Obama promised he would help them win by not getting within a 100 miles from them. Call it the political version of “remote” control. The New York Times reports:

 

Three months before the midterm elections, the president is stepping up his involvement in the fight to preserve the Democratic Party’s control of Congress. But advisers said he would concentrate largely on delivering a message, raising money and motivating voters from afar, rather than on racing from district to district. …

 

Democrats who are on the ballot hope to make the election about issues other than Mr. Obama, including the benefits to their constituents of the health care and stimulus legislation and the argument that voting Republican means a return to the policies of President George W. Bush.

 

That line of thinking is largely shared inside the West Wing, where advisers are trying to determine the balance between using Mr. Obama to inspire voters and keeping him from becoming a defining negative presence. Already, Mr. Obama is popping up more as a target in Republican campaign advertisements than as a positive presence in Democratic ones. …

 

Three high-profile Democratic defeats - governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey last year, and the election to choose a successor to Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts early this year - taught the White House at least one thing that is being applied to the midterm elections: Mr. Obama cannot swoop in at the 11th hour and turn a local race. …

 

These days, the discussion includes deciding where the president can travel - based, in part, on his approval rating and the local political environment. And for the first time since Mr. Obama arrived on the national scene six years ago, when he was on the United States Senate ballot in Illinois, the answer is no longer everywhere.

 

Former Gov. Roy Barnes (D-GA), for one, had “a scheduling conflict” and was campaigning elsewhere in the state to woo voters for his old job back when Obama came to Atlanta. About 100 miles away elsewhere, reports The Associated Press:

 

It's a tough year for Democrats, who control both the U.S. Senate and House, with voters frustrated by the sluggish economy and high unemployment. And Georgia is a GOP stronghold carried by Republican John McCain in 2008. Political experts say that means Barnes needs to distance himself from national Democrats - and Obama - as much as possible if he's to win in November.

 

"Among white independent voters in Georgia - which Barnes needs - he (Obama) is pretty unpopular," Emory University political science professor Alan Abramowitz said. "Barnes needs to stay away." …

 

Obama has seen his approval ratings decline recently. An AP-GfK poll conducted in June had Obama's national approval rating at 50 percent.

 

And he's even more unpopular in Georgia: A poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. in July had Obama with a 37 percent approval rating in the state. Fifty percent of those surveyed disapproved of Obama's performance.

 

Obama has seen his support from independent voters who helped boost him to a White House win in 2008 fade. Barnes will need to appeal to those very voters in a state where the GOP controls both chambers of the Legislature and both U.S. Senate seats - and where Republican Sonny Perdue snatched the governor's mansion from Barnes in 2002.

 

Ironically, Perdue – who cannot run again because of term limits - could afford to resolve a scheduling conflict so that he could be on hand to meet Obama's plane when it landed.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts Post (fourth item, The Accidental Nominee): Alysin Camerota, co-anchor for "FOX & Friends.Weekend" interviewed attorney Gloria Allred and Alma Sanford, who were pledged delegates for Hillary Clinton from CA and TN, respectively, about how they were pressured by Democrat party leaders to change their votes to Barack Obama (he wasn’t using his middle name back then; only “racists” were) at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Here’s what Allred told Camerota (video):

 

I was elected by the voters in my district as a pledged delegate for Hillary Rodham Clinton to go to the convention to vote for her. Under California law I would be required to do what I was pledged to do. But when I got to the convention … there was a lot of talk about … Obama was going to win, so perhaps Hillary delegates need to change their vote. … I did some legal research and said I wanted to talk to the California delegation, give the results of my research the people asked me to do. I was not allowed to tell them they were pledged to vote for Hillary and that they had to vote for Hillary, they couldn’t disenfranchise the 22,000 voters in each Congressional district they were required to represent if they went to the Convention. … They wouldn’t let me speak, so I gagged myself in protest. … There was a stampede to vote for Obama, but that’s in violation of the law in ten states  … and in violation of Democratic Committee rules … And by the way, we don’t know what the real vote was; whether pledged delegates actually voted as they were required to do … because the national Democratic Committee has never released how they voted.

 

[Hat Tip:  Too Cynthia]

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (seventh item, A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ): VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) issued an official legal opinion ruling the state’s law enforcement officers “have the authority to make the same inquiries as those contemplated by the new Arizona law. So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime." In VA, official opinions of the attorney general have the force of law unless overturned by a judge after a court challenge. The Washington Post reports:

 

A 2008 Virginia law requires that law enforcement check the immigration status of anyone taken into custody on suspicion of having committed a separate crime. Cuccinelli's opinion could expand such inquiries to those who have been legally stopped by law enforcement, for instance those pulled over for a traffic violation or at a police checkpoint.

 

Cuccinelli writes in the July 30 opinion that while local law enforcement have the ability to arrest those they suspect of committing criminal violations of immigration laws but not those they believe have violated civil immigration statutes. But he says inquiring into status is different than arresting for a violation and that law enforcement can inquire. While it is a crime to illegally cross the border, many other immigration violations are civil offense, like overstaying a valid visa. …

 

Cuccinelli filed an amicus brief supporting Arizona's position over that state's law.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (There’s Many A Slip ‘Twixt The Cup And Lip): U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of the Eastern District of Virginia issued the 32-page ruling denying a motion by U.S. Justice Department lawyers to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the state’s Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli (R) challenging Obamacare on Constitutional grounds, reports The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times:.

 

“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate - and tax - a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue,” Hudson wrote. He added that each side has “some authority” behind its position.

 

Cuccinelli’s case is one of two federal legal challenges to the healthcare overhaul and its requirement that individuals buy insurance or face a penalty. The other, brought by a group of other state attorneys general, is pending in the Northern District of Florida.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (sixth item, Depends Whose Ox Is Gored): As The Stiletto has pointed out several times, research on adult stem cells is much further along than embryonic cell cells, and is far likelier to yield useful tissues and therapies faster without the moral hazard. The Associated Press reports: 
 

For all the emotional debate that began about a decade ago on allowing the use of embryonic stem cells, it's adult stem cells that are in human testing today. An extensive review of stem cell projects and interviews with two dozen experts reveal a wide range of potential treatments.

 

Adult stem cells are being studied in people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, heart attacks and diabetes. Some early results suggest stem cells can help some patients avoid leg amputation. Recently, researchers reported that they restored vision to patients whose eyes were damaged by chemicals.

 

Apart from these efforts, transplants of adult stem cells have become a standard lifesaving therapy for perhaps hundreds of thousands of people with leukemia, lymphoma and other blood diseases.

 

"That's really one of the great success stories of stem cell biology that gives us all hope," says Dr. David Scadden of Harvard, who notes stem cells are also used to grow skin grafts.

 

"If we can recreate that success in other tissues, what can we possibly imagine for other people?"