The plan would basically cut out the four independent Democrats who have indicated their support for the Republicans. According to Mr. Dicker’s report, the GOP believes that by the time the two new Democrats are seated—giving Democrats a majority—it will be too late to overthrow Mr. Skelos.

All of this sounds like Albany politics as usual. Instead of scheming, the Republicans should welcome the support of independent Democrats—and point out to voters that they are more than happy to cross party lines to get the state back on track.

Republicans have a chance to make a point about bipartisanship. They should take advantage.

She deserves a new, full term of her own. The Observer endorses her candidacy over that of her Republican opponent, Wendy Long.

There is much to recommend about Ms. Gillibrand. She is absolutely tireless. She is a much-needed voice for upstate New York at a time when downstaters dominate top elected offices. She is the only woman who holds statewide office in New York. And in this bluest of blue states, she has managed to cross the aisle and keep open the lines of communication with her fellow New Yorkers who happen to be Republicans.

Most of all, Ms. Gillibrand has proven to be far more effective than many would have thought when Mr. Paterson promoted her to the Senate after slightly more than two years in the House. From her crucial vote that helped end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to her indefatigable work on behalf of 9/11 first responders, Ms. Gillibrand has shown leadership, courage and determination—qualities that are not always apparent in Washington these days.

She also understands that for New York and, indeed, the nation to move forward, politicians simply cannot get bogged down in ideological or partisan dogma. Effective politicians understand the importance of compromise, dialogue and negotiation.

As a senator, Ms. Gillibrand has avoided pointless partisan posturing, which helps to explain how she successfully argued in favor of increased federal spending to support the health-care needs of 9/11 emergency workers. That bill could easily have died on the Senate floor, but Ms. Gillibrand resuscitated it—a testament to her ability to bring her colleagues together, which is a quality that is becoming all too rare on Capitol Hill.

The senator’s instinct for consensus no doubt can be attributed to geography—she is a Democrat who represented a solidly Republican congressional district that includes parts of the Adirondacks, the Catskills and the Hudson Valley. She knows what it’s like to deal with members of the opposing party on a daily basis, and unlike so many on Capitol Hill who seem to live in an echo chamber, she understands that those who disagree with her are actual human beings, not mere abstractions.

Regrettably for the voters of New York, Ms. Gillibrand’s views and style are not exactly undergoing close scrutiny this year. And her apparently inevitable re-election may have made her just a little too comfortable. New York voters deserved a more vigorous contest in this Senate race. But the challenges of fund-raising and the Republican Party’s general lethargy in New York have combined to produce a less-than-memorable contest.

Ms. Gillibrand and her opponent, Ms. Long, met recently for their only face-to-face debate, and Ms. Long proved that she could have been a contender, had she been given greater support from local and national Republicans. While Ms. Long’s views on cultural and social issues are too conservative for most New Yorkers, her laser-like focus on economic issues and on Albany’s culture of corruption had Ms. Gillibrand on the defensive at several points. If the senator has further national ambitions—and, frankly, what Senator doesn’t?—she will need to step up her game in the coming years.

At the age of 45, Senator Gillibrand could easily serve for another two decades, given how hard it is to dislodge incumbents, especially Democratic incumbents in New York. That means there’s a very good chance that she will still be on Capitol Hill (or perhaps some other lofty office) in 2032.

What we need to hear from Ms. Gillibrand, not only in the next week but in the coming few years, is a vision for what promises to be a long tenure in the Senate. While her emphasis on retail campaigning and pothole politics is understandable at this stage of her Senate career (her colleague Senator Schumer is a master of both), New Yorkers are accustomed to U.S. senators with big ideas and global agendas.

In the 20th century alone, New York sent Robert Wagner, Herbert Lehman, Jacob Javits, Robert F. Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan to the U.S. Senate. These formidable politicians did not see themselves as glorified aldermen; they viewed their office as more than a distribution center for federal patronage.

New York senators made their mark by engaging large issues, writing landmark legislation and seeking solutions to systemic problems.

Frankly, New York needs that kind of intellectual engagement again. Yes, it’s important that the state’s senators fight for a fair share of federal spending. But New York expects and deserves more from them.

That will be Kirsten Gillibrand’s challenge over the next six years.

Dr. Scott Noren (Photo: Noren For Senate/Thomas Hoebbel Photography)

For the past few weeks, longshot "Occupy" Senate candidate Scott Noren has been at war with the state politics blog and TV show Capital Tonight with angry ads on Albany politics sites and supposedly plans to fly a plane over the capitol. Today, Mr. Noren published a series of emails he claims inspired the feud. Mr. Noren became enraged with Capital Tonight host Liz Benjamin, one of the pre-eminent reporters on the Albany beat, after receiving what he described as a "less than professional" response from her following "several attempts to get media coverage on Capital Tonight."

"You have come across as the most arrogant local newscaster I have ever encountered," Mr. Noren wrote in the missive he released today.

Mr. Noren, who is running as an independent against Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, responded to the exchange by launching an "Occupy Liz Benjamin" website in mid-January that linked to his main campaign page. He also purchased ad space for the "Occupy Liz Benjamin" site on the Albany Times Union's Capital Confidential blog. Time Warner Media owns Capital Tonight and, last Friday, Mr. Noren announced his intention to escalate his campaign by purchasing a plane to fly over Albany for 35 minutes while towing a banner proclaiming "The Occupation of Time Warner Cable." We reached out to Ms. Benjamin to discuss the emails and she declined to comment.

The first email published by Mr. Noren was one he sent to Ms. Benjamin on the evening of Friday, December 2 after she interviewed Ms. Gillibrand's Republican challenger, George Maragos on her show. In the email, Mr. Noren, who is a religious Jew, promised to mount a campaign against Ms. Benjamin when the Sabbath ended the next day.

"You have now really irritated me by slapping me in the face politically. When Shabbos ends, I will fight back so obnoxiously it will surpass your snotty blow off of me as the only Democratic challenger to Gillibrand. This is in response to your Maragos interview," Mr. Noren wrote. "It's the public that suffers when media decides to manhandle who gets covered. ... I will now start the Occupy part of my campaign starting this coming week. Good Shabbos."

It is perhaps worth noting that, by sending a Friday night email, Mr. Noren seems to have violated Jewish Sabbath laws prohibiting the use of electronics during Shabbos.

According to Mr. Noren, Ms. Benjamin responded with an email noting she correctly referred to Mr. Maragos as "the only Republican challenger to Gillibrand. She allegedly went on to blast him for his "anti-woman piece of shit email" and vow to bar him from Capital Tonight until he apologized.

"If you think this is an appropriate way for a would-be senator to speak to anyone, I suggest you re-examine your beliefs," she wrote. "This is, hands down, the most disrespectful, anti-woman piece of shit email I've ever received, doctor, and if you think I will ever have you as a guest or take you seriously until you apologize, you are sorely mistaken. Good shabbos indeed, you don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of this day of rest."

About 45 minutes later, Mr. Noren said Ms. Benjamin sent him a second email promising to forward his "threats to the appropriate authorities."

The next day, Mr. Noren sent another email to Ms. Benjamin

"My threats as you call them can be picketing, writing letters to the editor. ... You have come across as the most arrogant local newscaster I have ever encountered," he wrote. "I have just as much right to campaign and be heard as your rich crony politicians that make it on your show. It just shows how closed the process is when you shut out grassroots politics. Pretty disappointing."

Mr. Noren's campaign has little chance of success. Ms. Gillibrand is currently well ahead of all her potential Republican rivals in the polls. In a recent projection, New York Times pollster Nate Silver put her chances of re-election at 95 percent.

Updated (8:15 pm): The original version of this post said Mr. Noren purchased his ads on Capital Tonight rather than Capital Confidential.

Even as Albany continues to bask in the glow of a newly passed tax reform package, even as the city sets a course to leadership in the 21^st-century economy, the folks on Capitol Hill simply cannot put aside their partisan bickering for the good of the country. Doing so risks further damage to a less-than-robust economy, and thus making life worse, not better, for those individuals and families still suffering from unemployment and underemployment.

For a moment over the weekend, it seemed as though Washington was about to take a page from Albany. A bill to extend a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits for two months passed the Democratic-controlled Senate with the support of 39 Republicans. Yes, you read that correctly—39 Republican Senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—joined their Democratic colleagues in support of the two-month extension. The final vote on the measure was 89-10 in favor. (The tax cut and long-term jobless benefits are due to expire on New Year’s Day.)

If you thought that the denizens of Capitol Hill were about to join hands, just as the State Assembly and Senate did last week in Albany in support of Governor Cuomo’s tax reforms, well, you were wrong. The Tea Party class in the House was poised, as of this writing, to kill the extension in what promised to be an epic floor vote. If they succeeded, 160 million Americans will see a tax hike in 2012, and millions of unemployed workers will no longer receive unemployment benefits. Happy New Year!

This is a miserable state of affairs. Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is, admittedly, staring at a difficult re-election battle, described his Republican colleagues in the House as “irresponsible and wrong” because they refused to “help middle-class families” at a difficult time. Senator Brown’s immediate predecessor, the late Edward Kennedy, could not have said it any better.

It’s time for House Speaker John Boehner to decide if he is a leader or if he simply sees the speakership as a great way to get good tee times on exclusive golf courses. The Tea Party caucus is hardly the only symbol of partisanship and obstruction on Capitol Hill. At the moment, however, it is the most destructive.

If you want leadership lessons, Mr. Speaker, book a flight to New York over the holiday break.

John and Eric fighting in the UCL - photo by Anil Melwani

Eric, a beefy Long Islander with legs like a running back’s and platinum blond hair that enhances his Jersey Shore tan, locked up with his opponent, John. It was the second fight of the night at the Underground Combat League, one of the busiest promotions putting on mixed martial arts fights in New York, where the sport is illegal.

A crowd of around 100 people were crowded into a well-lit basement gym in Manhattan (the organizers asked us not to disclose its name for legal reasons), pushed up against a chain-link cage watching the action. Wrestling mats covered the floor and heavy bags hung from the ceiling. A burly bouncer stood by the front door to make sure no one arrived uninvited.

The two fighters pressed each other against the chain-link cage, exchanging knee strikes to the abdomen. With a surge, Eric threw his opponent to the ground, mounted him, perched on his chest and began raining down blows.

“Get out of there,” screamed the opposing corner. John bucked, trying to stand up. Eric snatched his wrist and fell backward in an arm lock. The crowd roared, hoping for a finish to the bout. The arm bent up at the elbow at a grotesque angle, but John didn’t submit. He rolled out, ended up on Eric’s back and began choking him. In a flash Eric reversed him again, taking top position with 20 seconds left in the round.

“Drop bombs!” yelled Eric’s corner. An elbow to the forehead sprayed blood, leaving a crimson splotch on Eric’s bleached hair. The five-minute round ended, but the referee didn’t hear the promoter shouting “Time!” over the screams of the excited crowd. The fighters exchanged blows for another few seconds before the match was finally stopped. The woman sitting beside us groaned. “That was too much for me.”

After the match, The Observer chewed on some beef jerky that had been left on a snack table by Jim Genia, who was having his book release party alongside the day’s bouts and had invited us along. His book, Raw Combat, published by Citadel, tells the story of New York’s underground fight scene. “This stuff happens in New York, and it will continue to happen here,” Mr. Genia said. He pointed out that when the sport was legalized in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, the underground circuits there all but evaporated.

Mr. Genia’s editor, Richard Ember, was also in attendance. The event was “interesting,” he said. “Although I don’t think I would like another man sitting on my face, no matter what the situation,” he added, adjusting his glasses. “And some of those punches, they looked like they were aimed at the vital organs …”

Mr. Genia’s prediction for the sport’s legalization in New York may be a little optimistic. M.M.A. has some vehement opponents in the state, including State Assemblyman Bob Reilly, who has compared the sport variously to dog fighting and prostitution. “It really is a glorification of brutality and violence,” he told a panel of fighters recently. “Many people believe that violence in the media, or any portrayal of violence, or violence itself as I think happens in mixed martial arts, in fact, makes people immune to violence and in fact promotes violence.”

To some extent, mixed martial arts has been its own worst enemy. In the early days, promoters enthusiastically branded the sport as a savage, no-holds-barred spectacle of pure violence and emphasizing the gorier aspects. Senator John McCain led the crusade against M.M.A. in the late ’90s, dubbing it “human cockfighting,” after which 36 states banned the sport outright.

For a time, it seemed promoters were down for the count, but they pulled a slick reversal. Rather than continue promoting the sport as the most violent entertainment available, they began speaking instead about its similarity to other athletic events and working to establish a set of guidelines. In 2000, New Jersey was the first state to introduce unified rules, which prohibited things like groin strikes, hair pulling and eye gouging. Since then, the sport has been legalized in 45 states. Of the hold-outs (Alaska, Wyoming, New York, Connecticut and Vermont), New York is the largest market by far, and therefore the biggest prize.

M.M.A. does have some strong political advocates in New York, including State Senator Kevin Parker, who holds a black belt in Tang Soon Doo. Asked to describe his fighting style, Mr. Parker kept it simple. “It’s what Chuck Norris does,” he told The Observer by phone.

Over the past few years, legislation that would allow professional M.M.A. in New York has repeatedly been passed by the State Senate. But legalization has been held up in the Assembly, where M.M.A. has several impassioned opponents, including upstate politco Mr. Reilly. “They won’t even bring it to the floor. My thing is, let’s get the proposal out there and see where the votes fall,” Mr. Parker said.

In his latest effort, Mr. Parker presented some compelling evidence to his fellow legislators about the safety of M.M.A. compared with more traditional contact sports. Despite the opposition of the American Medical Association and the deaths of two fighters following state-sanctioned bouts (Sam Vasquez in 2007 and Mike Kirkham in 2010), studies from John Hopkins and the British Journal of Sports Medicine suggest that the sport is actually safer, in terms of brain damage and fatalities, than its counterpart, boxing. And following the recent studies about brain damage in football, gridiron great Herschel Walker, who has taken up M.M.A., told USA Today, “People shy away from it because they think it’s a brutal, brutal sport. Guys, M.M.A. is safer than football and boxing. And people tell me they don’t believe it. Am I not the most credible person to give you the answer to that?”

This weekend, the sport’s biggest promotion, the Ultimate Fighting Championship, will make its network debut on Fox after years during which it was televised only on pay per view cable. Coincidentally, it will be going head to head with a welterweight boxing match featuring Manny Pacquiao. Proponents of M.M.A. like Mr. Parker are eager to draw attention to the irony: in New York it’s legal to kick someone in the head during a karate match or knee someone in the face during a muy thai fight. Boxers can punch each others brains out and grapplers can choke each other. But combined into the modern sport of mixed martial arts, these acts are illegal.

That said, Mr. Parker may not be the best advocate for M.M.A. In 2005 he punched a police officer and, in March of this year, attacked a photographer from the New York Post. When we mentioned to the senator that Brazilian jiujitsu was a hobby and invited him to our gym for a sparring session, he replied, “That sounds like something we’ll have to do. But not till I’m off probation.”

Though the sport remains illegal in New York, the state is home to some of the top fighters and trainers. Jon Jones, the U.F.C.’s light heavyweight champion, and the youngest man to hold the strap, was born and raised in Endicott, N.Y. Georges St-Pierre, the league’s welterweight champion, travels from Montreal to study Brazilian jiujitsu at the Renzo Gracie Academy on West 30th Street (disclosure: this reporter also trains there). Lightweight champ Frankie Edgar studies muay thai with Phil Nurse at the Wat Gym in Tribeca.

Some see issues other than health and safety behind New York’s ban, pointing to a union dispute in Las Vegas. The owners of U.F.C., Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, also own several nonunionized casinos in Las Vegas, which Nevada’s Culinary Union is eager to organize. The union is an affiliate of Unite Here, a national labor organization that has spearheaded opposition to M.M.A. in New York. “The Culinary Union is spending millions of dollars of all these people who pay dues to keep us out of [New York],” U.F.C. president Dana White said at a recent press conference “because my partners, the Fertitta brothers, are the largest nonunion gaming company in the country.”

“It’s a blood feud,” said a veteran labor attorney in Las Vegas, who requested anonymity.

But Unite Here’s “Memorandum of Opposition” to the bill legalizing M.M.A. points to “coercive contract provisions” that they see as exploitative. The Observer reached out to the organization, but has so far received no comment.

Back at the underground fight, The Observer chatted with Matthew Polly, an author who was doubling down on the book release party with the debut of his own title, Tapped Out, being published by Gotham. “It’s kind of the George Plimpton approach. What happens when a middle-age fatass tries to train with the elite of the M.M.A. world. Basically I get my ass kicked.”

Mr. Polly, a Rhodes scholar who dropped out of Princeton to study kung fu, was standing around in his socks on the wrestling mats. Like many, he was an adherent of the labor dispute theory. “Look, you follow the money from the unions to the politicians who are holding up this process and you’ll get your answer.”

“Why are you asking this guy? He’s only had one fight,” joked Joey Varner, head kickboxing coach at one of the premier gyms in Las Vegas, who had trained Mr. Polly for the book and flown in to celebrate. “We sent him home crying most nights.”

We asked Mr. Varner if M.M.A. would ever be legal in New York. “I sure hope so. You ever seen how they fix a broken orbital bone? They literally have to take part of your face off and screw your skull back together. That’s not the kind of thing you should have done without insurance.” Leagues like the U.F.C. have insurance to cover fights and training.
“The worst thing about amateur M.M.A. is the idiots with egos,” he added. “Of course the promoter is going to let you fight. He wants you to get knocked out, so he can have someone twitching on his highlight-reel DVD. In the pros, guys know how to protect themselves.”

In the bathroom, The Observer ran across the combatants, Eric and John. With limited resources, the Underground Combat League can’t provide a separate locker room for fighters.

The two men hugged and started chatting. Their match had been declared a draw. Each was still covered in the other’s blood. “I can’t believe you got out of that arm bar,” Eric said, shaking his head.

“It was tight man, real tight. But I ain’t going out like that,” John replied.

“Yeah, I heard it popping, but you didn’t quit,” Eric said. “We’ll do it again someday.”

"I didn't do a thing. [Chief of Staff] Jason [Koppel] didn't do a thing. This guy is a fucking liar," Seddio said Kruger told him.

Seddio, who serves as a district leader in Kruger's southeast Brooklyn district, has been a close ally of the Senator's since they served on the local community board together in the early 1970's. 

"I don't know what will happen with Carl Kruger but anytime I have dealt with him he has been an honest broker," Seddio said, adding that he would not turn his back on Kruger now. "I stand on the belief that you stand by your friends. If that is something that would hurt me so be it. I am not going to shrink away from people that I have a relationship with just because some one made an allegation."

The Brooklyn Paper has a good summary of Kruger's involvement in the FBI case against his former associate, restauranteur Michael Levitis:

The federal case appears to boil down to this: Levitis, a lawyer who co-owns the Rasputin Supper Club on Coney Island Avenue and Avenue X, allegedly recommended to a restaurateur working with the FBI that he make a donation to Kruger's campaign. In turn, Kruger would handle the eatery owner's problems with the State Liquor Authority, Levitis alleged.

"To start off, you have to throw in a few thousand," Levitis explained during a conversation recorded on April 14, 2009. "[It] depends on whether the problem is big or small. How much work he has to put in."

The informant gave Levitis $3,000 - $2,000 for Kruger and $1,000 for Levitis's help in brokering the deal. Levitis told the informant he gave Kruger's money to Jason Koppel, the senator's chief of staff, but it's unclear if the donation was ever handed over.

On Sept. 18, Levitis contacted the undercover restaurateur again, claiming that his hearing with the State Liquor Authority was postponed for two weeks.

"So, for now, you can still work," Levitis explained. "He [Kruger] asked that you do a fundraiser. I said, 'Help first.' But he does want you to do a fundraiser."

If Kruger resigns, Seddio, who was a Brooklyn surrogate judge before being brought down in his own corruption scandal, would be a potential candidate to replace him.

However, Seddio said that he did not believe that Kruger would step aside quickly.

"If I know anything about Carl Kruger he will fight this tooth and nail."

David Lowman, CEO of Chase Home Lending: What you're seeing --

Random Yelling Guy: He is lying!

Lowman: [...]

Random Yelling Guy: No! He has homeowners! Chairman, let the Homeowners speak!

Senator Chris Dodd, Finance Committee Chairman: Because of disruption subject to arrest, I suggest that you --

Random Yelling Guy: [Inaudible]!!!

Dodd: -- stand in recess for a few minutes.

mtaylor [at] observer.com | @mbrookstaylor

"[T]hey say that eliminating tracking is technically difficult and economically impractical, because the targeted advertisements supported by tracking allow the operators to offer free content," reports The Wall Street Journal. "It is technically impossible for Yahoo! to be aware of all software or files that may be installed on a user's computer when they visit our site," wrote Anne Toth, Yahoo's vice president of global policy and head of privacy.

Readers are becoming more aware of the elaborate snooping software that is being installed through these media outlets. Advertisers, meanwhile, are demanding the right to use increasingly sophisticated spy tools. Publishers are stuck with the choice of alienating consumers or losing revenue on ads.

The ad industry says it has come up with an icon that will alert readers when they are being tracked. This friendly logo will appear on any site where behavioral tracking software is present. Clicking on it takes users to a page where they can learn how to opt out.

But as The Wall Street Journal's reporting has made clear, these kinds of tracking ads are pretty much everywhere. A ubiquitous logo is more likely to become invisible to users than act as a warning sign.

Khuzami said that his agency is "also vigorously pursuing its case against Stanford and the others charged in this massive Ponzi scheme." He pointed to the "scope and egregiousness" of Stanford's crimes as reason for the SEC to "hold the wrongdoers accountable and seek maximum investor recovery."

Khuzami's remarks before the Senate Banking Committee follow a report by Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General David Kotz that says the SEC missed its chance to catch Stanford four times between 1997 and 2004. Kotz also says that the head of enforcement in the  SEC's Fort Worth office, Spencer Barasch, worked to prevent investigations of Stanford from going forward. After leaving the SEC, Barasch allegedly tried to join Stanford's legal defense.

According to Kotz's report, which was released in April, the Fort Worth office of the SEC examined Stanford four times -- in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2004. The agency believed that Stanford was running some kind of fraud, and in 2005 finally decided to formally investigate, but it botched the due diligence and whiffed on the chance to take Stanford down.

"Novel or complex cases were disfavored," said Kotz. "As a result, cases like Stanford, which were not considered 'quick-hit' or 'slam-dunk' cases, were not encouraged."

Reuters reports that the ex-head of enforcement in the Fort Worth office, a fellow named Spencer Barasch, expended significant effort to make SEC investigations of Stanford go away. He subsequently did legal work for Stanford in 2006.

On a separate but highly related note, Barasch in 2008 offered his services to Mark Cuban, who was then facing an SEC insider trading beef. (Cuban's case was reopened this week, by the way.)