Football is being used as a vehicle for money laundering, according to an agency responsible for tracking the proceeds of crime.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report warns football is at risk from criminals buying clubs, transferring players, and betting on the sport.

It also provides a rare insight into tax evasion in British football.

The report also raises concerns over human trafficking, corruption, drug trafficking and tax crime in the sport.

President Obama branded Wall Street bankers “shameful” on Thursday for giving themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses as the economy was deteriorating and the government was spending billions to bail out some of the nation’s most prominent financial institutions.

“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses,” Mr. Obama said during an appearance in the Oval Office with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”

. . .

Mr. Obama’s message on Thursday was reinforced by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who pledged in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times that the government would spend the remaining $350 billion of the troubled assets money “wisely and prudently and transparently.”

Mr. Biden said that he, like the president, was outraged by reports of large bonuses going to Wall Street executives.

“I’d like to throw these guys in the brig,” he said. “They’re thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They’re thinking, ‘Take care of me.’”

The Federal Reserve chairman and senior economic officials of the Bush administration solemnly filed into the large conference room of the Treasury Department. There was a sense of urgency, an understanding that drastic action — restructuring the financial landscape of corporate America — was desperately needed.

. . .

The crisis of that moment was the implosion of Enron, Global Crossing and other companies. Along with conflicts of interest and criminally creative bookkeeping, the culprit was often a combination of financial complexity and insanely expensive compensation packages.

Enron is long gone, but this episode — as much a warning for our financial security as the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was to the threat of wider terrorism — carries some telling lessons as our best minds struggle now to save the economy.

The meeting, recounted to me by Paul O’Neill, Mr. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, and several other participants, was something of a showdown. Everyone came armed for battle, none more than Mr. Greenspan and Mr. O’Neill, who railed that day like a pair of blue-suited Jeremiahs. Their colloquy on economic policy and corporate practice, which began when they were senior officials in the Ford administration, had evolved over three decades.

To the surprise of many younger men in the room, the duo opened by reminiscing about a bygone era when the value of a company’s stock was assessed by how strong a dividend was paid. It was a standard that demanded tough, tangible choices. Everything, of course, came out of the same pot of cash, from executive compensation and capital improvements to the dividend — which could be spent by a shareholder or reinvested in more company stock as a show of support.

In contrast to dividends, Mr. Greenspan intoned, “Earnings are a very dubious measure” of corporate health. “Asset values are, after all, just based on a forecast,” he said, and a chief executive can “craft” an earnings statement in misleading ways.

Speaking with a hard-edged frankness rarely heard in public — and seeing that those assembled were not sharing his outrage — Mr. Greenspan slapped the table. “There’s been too much gaming of the system,” he thundered. “Capitalism is not working! There’s been a corrupting of the system of capitalism.”

Mr. O’Neill, for his part, pushed to alter the threshold for action against chief executives from “recklessness” — where a difficult finding of willful malfeasance would be necessary for action against a corporate chief — to negligence. That is, if a company went south, the boss could face a hard-eyed appraisal from government auditors and be subject to heavy fines and other penalties. By matching upside rewards with downside consequences — a bracing idea for the corner office — Messrs. O’Neill and Greenspan hoped fear would compel the titans of business to enforce financial discipline, full public disclosure and probity down the corporate ranks.

But they were in the minority. . . .

Conservationists swoon at the possibility of it all. Here in Alaska, where melting arctic ice and eroding coastlines have made global warming an urgent threat, this little city has cut its electricity use by more than 30 percent in a matter of weeks, instantly establishing itself as a role model for how to go green, and fast.

Comfort has been recalibrated. The public sauna has been closed and the lights have been dimmed at the indoor community pool. At the library, one of the two elevators was shut down after someone figured out it cost 20 cents for each round trip. The thermostat at the convention center was dialed down eight degrees, to 60. The marquee outside is dark.

Schoolchildren sacrifice Nintendo time and boast at show-and-tell of kilowatts saved. Hotels consult safety regulations to be sure they have not unscrewed too many light bulbs in the hallways. On a recent weekday, all but one of the dozens of television screens on display at the big Fred Meyer store were black — off, that is.

Yet even as they embrace a fluorescent future, the 31,000 residents of Juneau, the state capital, are not necessarily doing it for the greater good. They face a more local inconvenient truth. Electricity rates rocketed about 400 percent after an avalanche on April 16 destroyed several major transmission towers that delivered more than 80 percent of the city’s power from a hydroelectric dam about 40 miles south.

“People are suddenly interested in talking about their water heaters,” said Maria Gladziszewski, who handles special projects for the city manager’s office. “As they say, it’s a teachable moment.”

Life in modern times is better than any other time in history because we have electricity to do these things. If that’s what conservationists “swoon” at then, sorry, I’m not there with them. Let the kids play Nintendo — it’s better than sitting in a dark, cold room in Juneau.

Please, tell me this doesn’t sound like one of the establishing shots in “Children of Men”:

With the first bills based on the increased rate scheduled to be sent out this week, fear is in the air. So is the laundry. Dryers eat up watts, and local stores ran out of clothespins because so many people started hanging their laundry outside. Never mind that it rains 220 days of the year and rarely gets truly warm here amid the fjords and forests of the Inside Passage.

“It takes about two days to get them dry,” Linda Augustine, 66, an elementary school teacher, said as she used plastic clothes hangers to dry blue jeans and T-shirts under the awning on the back porch of her mobile home. “And I don’t iron my clothes now. You massage them to get the wrinkles out while they’re still on the hanger.”

Meeting the energy challenge of the 21st century!

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

“It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.

There are few restrictions on what kind of car the members can choose, and there is no limit on how much they can spend. But the benefit can be politically sensitive, given the growing concerns about automobile emissions and an economy that has left many people struggling to pay for the rapidly rising cost of gas, which was averaging $3.63 a gallon nationwide earlier this week.

Not only does the federal government pick up the cost of the lease and the gas, but also general maintenance, insurance, registration fees and excess mileage charges. The perk itself may draw heightened attention in the coming weeks as members of Congress consider proposals to address gas prices, including one to suspend temporarily the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon.

Congressional records show that about 125 members of the House make use of the benefit, which has been in place since at least the 1980s and is part of the allowance provided for their office operations. They include Representatives Charlie Melancon of Louisiana (2007 Chevy Tahoe), Bobby L. Rush of Illinois (2007 Lincoln Navigator) and Alcee L. Hastings of Florida (2006 Infiniti M45).

The Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.

The WRX has a 15.9 gallon gas tank, and requires premium gasoline. With premium gas running $3.929 per gallon in the Seattle market, a full tank costs $62.47. Presume that Congress elects to implement the McCain/Clinton plan for a Gas Tax Holiday.

1) Assuming that the price of premium gasoline remains fixed at $3.929/gal., how much money in dollars does Apocalypse Tom save on his weekly trip to the pump if his weekly top-off requires purchase of 3/4 tank? What can Tom buy with the savings?

2) What is Apocalypse Tom’s percentage savings over the taxed price, again assuming a fixed price of $3.929/gal.? Round your answer to the nearest hundredth of a percent.

3) Because the Gas Tax Holiday is sure to be temporary, what is Apocalypse Tom’s total savings in dollars over a period of 20 weeks?

4) Assuming that he chooses to save the extra money calculated in Question 1 instead of spending it on junk food, how much whiskey can Apocalypse Tom purchase with the accumulated savings, in order to get him through a notional McCain inauguration?

Answers After the Jump. Seriously, try to work it out, and let Tom know if you think he’s insane.

1) Trick question. Apocalypse Tom saves a consistent 18.4 cents per gallon during the Gas-Tax holiday regardless of changes in the price of gas. Overall, Tom saves $2.19 on 3/4 of a tank of gas if the tax is eliminated. With $2.19, Tom can purchase one 16 oz. bottle of water and one “Big Grab” bag of Doritos for the drive.

2) Apocalypse Tom saves 4.68% on his gas.

3) Tom saves $43.80 over 20 weeks.

4) God, not nearly enough.

Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.

Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.

Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.

Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily — but they’re the best guide we have.

Confidential to our elected officials: you’re probably introducing a fair number of people to the workings of Congress here. If you want them all to think you’re a bunch of jackasses who enjoy wanking and grandstanding, well, … congratulations! Mission Accomplished, as they say.

I feel bad for Henry Waxman in particular — pretty much the only guy in congress who can still spell the word “oversight” — who’s now been reduced to finding out who stuck what needles in who’s posterior.

I seem to have read somewhere that the surge is working. That’s good! It’s important to take care of stuff in Iraq! But you know what? I really don’t give a shit what Obama and Clinton are or are not saying about the surge while they’re reaching out to primary voters. What, you expect them to suddenly change their messages in the middle of a campaign? You were once Quayle’s chief of staff — you should know how this stuff works.

I suppose there is the idea that it is somehow funny to use the Times’ op-ed pages to even out the playing field in American public debate about Iraq, but I can read this in so many other places that it just seems like a waste of space. You have a year to make your point — is this really what you want to leave as the record of your tenure?

I still happen to think the Times op-ed page is an important forum. You cheapen it by sounding like a syndicated writer. And quit using it as talking points for sparring with Juan Williams. If I wanted to watch Fox News Sunday, I’d wake up in time to do it.

I never thought I’d say this, but Paul Krugman was so much more interesting this morning.

Not every employer is out to exploit cheap labor. In the media industry in particular, a company is hard-pressed not to use freelance workers. Many of the most ambitious contractors are young and happy to do the work for a byline or are established enough to want independence — both are attractive. Giving those people steady work or a few perks seems only natural. Unfortunately for employers, it also qualifies them for more.

In September, Governor Spitzer issued an executive order establishing the Joint Enforcement Task Force On Employee Misclassification. Spitzer’s order rattled the cages of a few media companies — the governor wants to look under rocks most of them would prefer remain undisturbed.

Viacom may have faced a choice common to media companies: eliminate benefits to independent contractors, or hire them on as employees. Take away paid vacation, company-provided healthcare and a retirement plan, and it becomes a lot easier to make the case that a freelancer is just a freelancer. Many newspapers spent the summer cleaning house in anticipation — those who haven’t may find themselves in a bind.

Spitzer’s political epitaph will read something along the lines of great media-whoring prosecutor who had horrible politcal acumen and couldn’t quite get the hang of being in executive office.

Exit question: Is Rudy somehow different?

Zack De La Rocha is the lead rapper and agitator and sermonizer of Rage Against the Machine, but on Saturday night at Randalls Island he barely talked between songs. Then, near the end of the set, came the speech everyone was anticipating.

On April 29, during this rap-rock band’s reunion concert at the Coachella festival, Mr. De La Rocha gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of war crimes and said, “They should be hung and tried and shot.” (Hmm. In that order?) A clip found its way to the Fox News program “Hannity & Colmes,” which was not overstocked with Rage Against the Machine fans. The on-screen headline read, “Rock grp ‘Rage Against the Machine’ says Bush admin should be shot.”

Sean Hannity seemed to suggest that the Secret Service should be alerted. Ann Coulter, a guest, got in a good quip (“Has anybody checked in with a Flock of Seagulls to see what their position is on Bush?”), then delivered a final verdict, “They’re losers, their fans are losers, and there’s a lot of violence coming from the left wing.”

On Saturday night Mr. De La Rocha responded. He attacked the “fascist” Fox News pundits for “claiming that we said that the president should be assassinated.” As the crowd shouted its approval, he continued, “No: he should be brought to trial as a war criminal and hung and shot. That’s what we said.” Despite the insistence on due process, this still isn’t a position any mainstream politician would endorse. But that’s precisely the point: At a time when unimpeachable causes and pragmatic endorsements are the norm, it’s nice to be reminded that rock stars can get political without sounding like politicians.

Sadly, most people don’t fully realize the freedom their 20s hold. They don’t understand that these years might well be their last chance to experience all the world has to offer, unfettered by the obligations of full-fledged adult life.

As a public service, then, The Record presents (in no particular order) 30 suggestions of things to do before turning 30. These activities that will give you a richer, more-rounded perspective on the world and, in the process, bestow upon your 20s a golden glow you will certainly appreciate in later years.

That said, while jury duty (#26) is important and all (“When that notice comes, don’t immediately figure out ways to avoid jury duty”), I’m not sure reading Jeff Chang’s “Can’t Stop Won’t Stop” needs to figure as high as #6.

So yeah, there’s that. But at least one of the commenters helpfully adds an important ommission:

THEY FORGOT TO ADD ‘MENAGE A TROIS’!

Hear, hear.

Point being, what are we as a society coming to when we have to remind the youth to become a regular at a brewpub (#20) or pierce parts of one’s own body before aging sets in (#9)? And I mean, I agree with the wisdom of paying off your credit card (#7), but do I really have to watch an outdoor production of Shakespeare (#16)? By the time you’re 30, you’re pretty much over it anyway.

He was loud, he was blustery and he was clear: our country is being overrun by Mexicans. To back his bark, he wrote, “Whatever It Takes,” as subtle as a cactus poke. He had money, and he had the power of office, a 12-year incumbency.

In the end, J. D. Hayworth, a Republican, was kicked out of his Congressional seat here last year. In the glossy white suburbs of Phoenix, immigrant-bashing backfired.

Farther south, in a district that is ground zero in the border wars — the seared-over patch of Arizona desert where the Minutemen patrol, more Mayberry than Concord — another Republican took an even harsher stance. The anti-immigration extremist, Randy Graf, was crushed.

For Republicans in Arizona, the result was a net loss of two Congressional seats.

That’s an interesting grand theory but it’s problematic. For starters, during the campaign, Hayworth’s Democratic opponent sounded pretty tough on illegal immigration. And merely mentioning that anti-illegal immigration candidate Randy Graf lost misses the big picture — he won in the primary precisely because of his position on illegal immigration against a more moderate Republican candidate. And even though Graf wasn’t really supported by the Republican Party in Arizona, he still won 42 percent of the vote as basically the sort of yahoo Egan describes in his piece (see for example).

And can you parse this convoluted logic*? I’m afraid I don’t quite get it:

Democrats are laughing all the way to a new Western majority. In 2004, they picked up a Senate and a Congressional seat in Colorado, with two Hispanic brothers in cowboy hats. And they did it with counties where an NPR liberal is hard to find.

“Arizona is in play like never before,” said David Waid, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party. “And the Republicans are literally handing it to us.”

Some Republicans know this. Nationwide, Hispanic support for Republican candidates dropped 10 points from 2004 to 2006 — to about 30 percent of the vote. Yes, this state’s two Republican senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, favor the comprehensive immigration bill. And yes, President Bush is the bill’s chief proponent.

But pragmatism is being drowned out by the bullies with electronic bullhorns, who’ve got their party leaders running scared.

“If they get their way and the bill dies, so too may Republican electoral prospects for the foreseeable future,” wrote Clint Bolick, a conservative scholar, in The Arizona Republic this week.

Remember that prediction on Election Day 2008.

Hmm . . . but just because the State Democratic Chairman says the state’s in play doesn’t necessarily make it more than wishful thinking. Especially when you try to square that with polls in the state, which seem to toe the yahoo line:

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Arizona voters say that is Very Important for “the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration.” However, just 14% believe the Senate bill will actually reduce illegal immigration.

Forty-two percent (42%) believe that if the bill is passed, illegal immigration will actually increase. That is very similar to the national reaction.

Just 22% of Arizona voters believe it is Very Important for “the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States.” However, 60% would be willing to accept a compromise providing illegal aliens with a path to citizenship provided that it truly reduced levels of illegal immigration.

If Arizona voters had a chance to improve the legislation, 70% would like to “make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration.” Just 22% would” make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country and eventually become citizens.”

*I suppose it’s why op-ed writing is so much more difficult than straight-up advocacy reporting.