Kuwait has ordered local Internet service providers to block online video-sharing website YouTube over clips that could offend Muslims. "Since the website displays the Koran in the form of songs sung with the oud (stringed instrument) ... and publishes offensive pictures of the Prophet Mohammad ... please proceed with immediate effect in blocking the website www.youtube.com," read a copy of a memo from the Ministry of Communications published on websites and blogs Monday.
The Ministry of Communications was not immediately available for a comment. The website could still be accessed in Kuwait on Monday. A search for the keyword "Kuwait" returned about 59,000 videos of all different kinds.
YouTube, a unit of the internet search engine Google, is the third most popular site in Kuwait, according to the internet monitoring site Alexa.
A source at one major telecommunication company in Kuwait, Fasttelco, confirmed receipt of the memo, according to a report published in Kuwait Times on Monday. "It's supposed to be blocked right now. But due to technical preparations the blocking may take until tomorrow [Monday]," the newspaper quoted the source as saying.
Islamist and tribal groups managed to increase their grip on parliament in the pro-Western Gulf Arab state's May elections with some deputies demanding Kuwaiti broadcasters show more religious content.
Website are often blocked in the Gulf, including pornographic ones, VOIP sites that allow users to make free telephone calls and user-generated content sharing sites like Flikr. The UAE blocked the popular photo-sharing website Flickr earlier this summer because its content was "inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates," according to the message that appeared when trying to access the site.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
(AKI) - The Italian government may send troops to reinforce the streets of Caserta outside the southern city of Naples after the slaying of six African immigrants by suspected Mafia hitmen last week. The massacre took place last week in the town of Castel Volturno, in the province of Caserta, which is home to the Campania region's Mafia or Camorra.
The Italian cabinet is due to meet on Tuesday to discuss the need for security reinforcements after the massacre provoked violent street demonstrations.
A Camorra-linked suspect was arrested on Monday in connection with the Castel Volturno shootings. Besides the six who died, two other people were injured in the attack. A total 89 percent of participants in a survey by Italy's Sky News said they think the army should be deployed in the Campania region surrounding Naples to fight the Camorra.
The Italian government in early August deployed some 3,000 troops to support police officers in major Italian cities as part of the government's campaign to combat crime and boost security in these cities. The deployment, authorised initially for six months, drew criticism from Italy's opposition parties.
Critics of the move said it sends a message that Italy is swamped by crime and that the police cannot do their job. Opposition politicians also argued it will deter tourists.
It is not the first time that troops have been deployed in Italian cities. In 1992 soldiers were stationed on the streets of Sicily after the Mafia assassinated two judges in bomb attacks. Soldiers in 1994 also patrolled the border with Slovenia in the north east to tackle illegal immigration. In 1995 the army was sent to Naples to tackle the Camorra or local Mafia.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Um, why would mafia "hitmen" massacre African immigrants?
Were the Afros trying to muscle in on the drug trade?
#2
The african guys buddies went on a rampage afterward, as described by this article, shouting anti-italians slogans; drug business or human traffiking issues to blame? Shooting execution style six guys at once is a rather big deal, outside of mexico, I guess.
A French court heard an appeal Monday into the case of a Muslim couple whose marriage was annulled on the grounds the bride was not a virgin, sparking a national uproar. Public outrage at the ruling, handed down in April, forced the government to order the appeal against the wishes of both spouses.
Neither the woman nor her husband, a Muslim engineer in his 30s, was present for the hearing in the northern French town of Douai. Both were due to ask the court to release them from their marriage vows.
A spokesman for the prosecution said Monday it was not against granting an annulment, but would need to replace the "discriminatory motive" of virginity with a "legitimate" one. The bride's lawyer, Charles-Edouard Mauger, said before the hearing his client was "very fragile" as a result of the scandal, and wanted to find a "way out of this marital bond that no longer has any meaning."
"We need to take the general interest into account, and not annul the union for questions of virginity, but we still need to find a motive to annul this marriage," he told reporters.
The man sought the annulment after realizing his bride was not a virgin on their wedding night in July 2006. His wife subsequently said she accepted the annulment, insisting she wanted to move on.
The ruling handed down in the northern French city of Lille did not mention the couple's religion but said the man's belief in the woman's virginity was a "determining factor" in his decision to marry her.
France's Muslim-born justice minister, Rachida Dati, though she finally ordered an appeal, had continued to insist the ruling was legally sound, based on a breach of trust between the pair, not the issue of virginity itself.
The case drew furious protests from women's rights groups while some 150 European parliament members wrote to Dati in June denouncing it as an unacceptable encroachment of religion in the public sphere.
France is home to Europe's largest Muslim community, estimated at five million people.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm trying to understand how the French are viewing this. Trying but not succeeding. Not enough wine, perhaps?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/23/2008 1:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Muslim couple walking out of the divorce court, the wife is crying her heart out. Husband says 'Oh for fu*k's sake stop crying, you're still my first cousin'
Barack Obama and Joe Biden stepped out of sync again Tuesday, as the Democratic presidential nominee criticized his running mate for voicing opposition to the government bailout of American International Group early last week.
It was the second off-message moment for the Democratic team in two days. Biden had to ratchet back his own rhetoric Monday after an interview aired in which he called one of his own campaign ads "terrible."
The lack of harmony suggests the Obama team, for months a rancor-free institution, is running into the kind of message discipline problems that John McCain's campaign faced before he started to cut back his interaction with reporters.
The latest friction happened when Obama was asked on NBC's "Today Show" about why he criticized McCain for initially opposing a federal bailout of AIG when Biden was also speaking out against it.
"I think ... that in that situation, I think Joe should have waited, as well," Obama said. He was referring to Biden's interview with NBC last Tuesday in which he said, "I don't think (AIG) should be bailed out by the federal government."
That echoed McCain's comment the same day. But all the while Obama had stayed relatively mum on the crisis at AIG. He released a statement last Wednesday expressing his hopes for the rescue plans, but did not give a clear verdict on whether he supported the plan.
Having censured Biden for his remarks, Obama continued to criticize McCain Tuesday for initially opposing federal action on AIG. "(McCain) said the government should stand aside and allow one of the nation's largest insurers, AIG, to collapse," Obama said. " I think what has been clear during this entire past 10 days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation."
The internal static, however, was not quite as pronounced as when Biden denounced his own campaign's ad the day before. In an interview with CBS News, the Delaware senator took issue with an attack ad from his own side that criticized McCain for his lack of savvy when it comes to computers and e-mail. "I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said. "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it."
The McCain campaign pounced on the statement, and Biden later issued a clarification. "Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize," Biden later said, criticizing McCain for an ad accusing Obama of voting to teach kindergartners about sex. The Obama campaign has said the bill would help children avoid predators.
Biden also raised eyebrows two weeks ago when he said Hillary Clinton "might have been a better pick than me" to be Obama's running mate.
While Obama has worked intently to patch up the rifts between his campaign and supporters loyal to Clinton, he hasn't gone so far as to say Clinton would be a better running mate. Biden, however, told the audience at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire that Clinton "is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America."
He was responding to an audience member who criticized Clinton.
This morning, I had the honor of testifying before the House Budget Committee on the situation in Iraq. The discussion was polite and civilized, and was a reminder that even now it is possible for people who disagree about what to do in Iraq to argue without raised voices and disagreeable language (apart from the Code Pink women, yelling for those who think that shouting opponents down is preferable to arguing with them). Congressman Brian Baird once again demonstrated that it is possible even for those who bitterly opposed the war to recognize the importance of doing the right thing now--as well as the possibility of crossing the Republican-Democrat sectarian divide on this issue.
One question came up repeatedly in the hearing that deserves more of an answer than it got, however: Why, after all the assistance we've given to Iraq over the past five years, was the first major Iraqi oil deal signed with China and not with an American or even a western company? The answer is, in part, because three Democratic senators intervened in Iraqi domestic politics earlier this year to prevent Iraq from signing short-term agreements with Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total, Chevron, and BP.
The Iraqi government was poised to sign no-bid contracts with those firms this summer to help make immediate and needed improvements in Iraq's oil infrastructure. The result would have been significant foreign investment in Iraq, an expansion of Iraqi government revenues, and an increase in the global supply of oil.
One would have thought that leading Democratic senators who claim to be interested in finding other sources of funding to replace American dollars in Iraq, in helping Iraq spend its own money on its own people, and in lowering the price of gasoline for American citizens, would have been all for it.
Instead, Senators Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Claire McCaskill wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice asking her "to persuade the GOI [Government of Iraq] to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq."
The Bush administration wisely refused to do so, but the resulting media hooraw in Iraq led to the cancellation of the contracts, and helps to explain why Iraq is doing oil deals instead with China.
Senators Schumer, McCaskill, and Kerry claimed to be acting from the purest of motives: "It is our fear that this action by the Iraqi government could further deepen political tensions in Iraq and put our service members in even great danger."
For that reason, presumably, Schumer went so far as to ask the senior vice president of Exxon "if his company would agree to wait until the GOI produced a fair, equitable, and transparent hydrocarbon revenue sharing law before it signed any long-term agreement with the GOI." Exxon naturally refused, but Schumer managed to get the deal killed anyway.
But the ostensible premise of the senators' objections was false--Iraq may not have a hydrocarbons law, but the central government has been sharing oil revenues equitably and there is no reason at all to imagine that signing the deals would have generated increased violence (and this was certainly not the view of American civilian and military officials on the ground in Iraq at the time).
It is certain that killing the deals has delayed the maturation of Iraq's oil industry without producing the desired hydrocarbons legislation.
Nor is it entirely clear what the senators' motivations were. Their release (available along with their letter to Secretary Rice at the New York Observer quoted Senator McCaskill as follows:
"'It's bad enough that we have no-bid contracts being awarded for work in Iraq. It's bad enough that the big oil companies continue to receive government handouts while they post record breaking profits. But now the most profitable companies in the universe--America's biggest oil companies--stand to reap the rewards of this no-bid contract on top of it all,' McCaskill said. 'It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect these dots--big oil is running Washington and now they're running Baghdad. There is no reason under the sun not to halt these agreements until we get revenue sharing in place,'
So was this about what's best for Iraq and American interests there or about nailing "big oil" in an election year?
Either way, like Barack Obama's asking the Iraqi foreign minister to hold off on a strategic framework agreement until after the American election, it was nothing but harmful to American interests and our prospects in Iraq
Make no doubt about it, a gaffe by Joe Biden in Ohio today will be seen on in Pennsylvania campaign ads soon. Biden, while talking to someone on a rope line, and probably not known he was being filmed said "we are not supporting clean coal," when asked why he was supporting it. Biden went on to say China is burning dirty coal and we need to make sure they turn it into clean coal, but then finished with "no coal plants here in America." With clean coal such a driving force in Pa. you can be assured it will be on the airwaves soon.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2008 14:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No coal, no offshore oil, no wind power off Nantucket, no military to secure the Persian Gulf... If they win, only those of us who own caves are going to survive the winters. Keep talkin', Joe.
#2
Are they Americans and free of felonies? Amazing.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/23/2008 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Best reason yet for mandatory drug testing before voting.
Posted by: ed ||
09/23/2008 17:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
We prefer to call them Metabolism-Challenged Americans. They're one of our most loyal voting blocs.
Posted by: The Democrats ||
09/23/2008 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Fellow RB'ers, the surviving members of the Grateful Dead all live in Marin (except Bill Kreutzman who I think lives in Hawaii). They are all liberals. No surprise there. The key question for this show is who is playing lead guitar? Trey Anastasio? Warren Haynes? Steve Kimock? Any one of those and you got your self a rippin show. Just contribute double the ticket price to McCain as an offset. Oh, and bring a barf bag for the political blather portion, which I doubt the band itself would do. Hard for most of them to string more than a sentence or two together.
#3
Hmmmm, almost 80% of those viewing the article say the school should not have punished the kid. And the place for comments (shoutbox) is full and can take no more traffic......
Maybe we should Google the school and see if the phone lines or email work? Nah, why bother it's just children's minds being programmed.....just saying.
#4
Most of the time when elementary school students wear something inappropriate, they're required to change it for something out of the spare clothing bin the nurse keeps for bathroom and school lunch accidents. Suspension seems a bit harsh, under the circumstances.
#7
I have to wonder how strongly the kid feels about the Presidential campaign compared to his parents. I mean did the kid really choose to wear this or are the parents using the kid to create an attention getting first Ammendment battleground.
Having said that the school administrators are fools and unfit to be anywhere near children.
#8
The story says the kid was given the option of changing the shirt, turning it inside out, or getting suspended. Looks like he was (most likely with Daddy's encouragement) trying for option number 3 as a kind of political statement/attention seeking activity.
#9
That does change things, Cornsilk Blondie. If there aren't consequences for stupid choices when people are young, they end up having sex on railroad tracks and other Darwinian adventures later.
Like him or not, he's 'been there' and understands (sort of) what a president has to put up with and actually do. His answers were not always good, but at least he mostly understands the questions, unlike most of the media and congress critters.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
09/23/2008 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Has the $21 million check from the DNC cleared ? If it has, look out the Hill & Bill parade will be turning the corner once again.
I don't remember the last time BC (before Clinton) that a Dem won back to back. There was the twofer of JFK & LBJ but the last single to do it was FDR in '44.
#10
JFK wouldn't stand a chance with today's Democratic party. This little tidbit from his inaugural address would get him kicked out of the clubhouse for sure:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
#11
Bill was personally trashed by O with a false racism charge. I seriously doubt he's forgotten that or forgiven it. Forget about Hillary - Bill has ample personal reason to destroy O.
#12
Playing "Addicted to Love" as Bill was walking off the podium at the Dem convention after endorsing Obama could not have helped matters.
Posted by: ed ||
09/23/2008 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Ya hate to say it BUT ya gotta love clinton in this situation - he's been stabbing barry in the back then throwing him under the bus about once a week since last Spring! HA!
Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCainÂ’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize . . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2008 06:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Biden probably feared that seniors would be offended by the ad, then later saw the polls indicated the social security scare smears were doing their work with seniors so he reversed his opinion.
#4
maybe its all part of the staging for his removal from the ticket. he also is credited for publicly taking an opposite tack from The One on the bailout, so it may jsut be that in the next few days he is asked to step down due to severe differences with Zeroman.
#6
My earlier comment has been disappeared. I hope I didn't say anything out of line. Biden HAS had multiple brain surgeries (1988, I believe) to save his life. If McCain's skin cancer can be talked about, why not Biden's medical history. Especially in light of Biden's comically erratic cognitive functioning.
If the above subject matter is taboo and verboten here, please let me know.
Posted by: Minister of funny walks ||
09/23/2008 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
Israel's President Shimon Peres asked Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday to form a new government, a day after scandal-plagued Prime Minister Ehud Olmert officially stepped down.
Livni, 50, a former Mossad spy who replaced Olmert as head of the centrist Kadima party in a leadership vote on Wednesday, is hoping to become Israel's second woman prime minister after Golda Meir, who served from 1969 to 1974. "After consultations with the political parties, the president has asked Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni to form a government", public radio quoted an official statement as saying.
Livni now has 42 days to form a governing coalition in order to avert snap elections that polls indicate would bring the right-wing Likud party of former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power.
Livni on Monday urged the leader of the right-wing Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, to join a unity government. She said she would call a parliamentary election if she did not succeed in securing support for a new government.
Livni on Monday urged the leader of the right-wing Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, to join a unity government. She said she would call a parliamentary election if she did not succeed in securing support for a new government.
Traditionally, the task of forming a government goes to the party with the most seats in the Knesset, in this case Kadima, which has 29 MPs in the 120-member parliament. Livni has already begun talks with parliamentary factions that could be included in a future coalition, while at the same time pressing members of her own party to close ranks. But in the rough and tumble of shifting allegiances in Israeli politics, there is no guarantee that she will be able to come up with the numbers to form a coalition government and thus avoid an early election.
The Labor party, the main partner in the current coalition, has sent mixed signals, having met Netanyahu over weekend and called for either early elections or a "national emergency government." Livni met Labor chief Defense Minister Ehud Barak hours after Olmert formally submitted his resignation and offered to make the party a "full partner" in a new coalition, according to Haaretz newspaper, quoting unnamed Livni aides.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/23/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Zippy in the hot seat. I think AQ's "October Surprise" may have something to do with Israel.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Valerie Plame, observe the former clandestine intelligence agent.
#3
Is anyone concerned that the two leading candidates are nicknamed "Zippy" and "Bibi"? Reminds me of Ayn Rand's rant in "Atlas Shrugged" against trusting US Gov't officials with names like "Chip".
The B-3 has been seen. The U.S. Air Force is working on a replacement for its current force of heavy bombers (20 B-2s, 67 B-1s and 76 B-52s). Models of what the new bomber might look like have been shown, and the "B-3" (officially the NGB, or New Generation Bomber) looks like the B-2.
There are two proposals (from Northrop Grumman and Boeing). Both look like the B-2. For the Northrop Grumman proposal, the main difference is that the stubby wings are "cranked" (moved forward a bit, rather than continuing in a straight line from the body of the aircraft). These derivative designs are apparently favored because the air force knows it is unlikely to get the money for a radical (and expensive) new design. There is also talk of building it so it can operate with, or without, a crew.
The air force hopes to get the B-3 into service in ten years. That may be possible, given that the air force has several billion dollars of its money currently invested in "black" (secret) aircraft programs. The B-3 spec calls for a smaller and stealthier aircraft that carries a ten ton bomb load (less than half what current heavy bombers haul). This is in recognition of the effectiveness of smart bombs, which are more than a hundred times more effective than unguided bombs.
Meanwhile, the most cost-effective bombers continue to be the half century old B-52s, simply because they are cheaper to operate. The well maintained B-52s are quite sturdy and have, on average, only 16,000 flying hours on them. The air force estimates that the B-52s won't become un-maintainable until they reach 28,000 flight hours. Thus these aircraft could serve another 20 or more years. The B-1 and B-2 were meant to provide a high tech (and much more expensive) replacement for the B-52, but the end of the Cold War made that impractical. The kinds of anti-aircraft threats the B-1 and B-2 were designed to deal with never materialized. This left the B-52 as the most cost effective way to deliver bombs. The B-1s and B-2s are getting some of the same weapons carrying and communications upgrades as the B-52, if only because these more modern aircraft provide a more expensive backup for the B-52.
Of the 744 B-52s built, only 94 are still fit for service. Nearly fifty have already been donated to museums (including one in Australia and one in South Korea.) Because of the Russia-U.S. START treaty, hundreds of B-52s in the "bone yard" were stripped of any useful equipment in the 1990s, and, since then, chopped up for scrap. This was all done out in the open, so that Russian spy satellites could confirm it.
In the last half century, the air force has developed six heavy bombers (the 240 ton B-52 in 1955, the 74 ton B-58 in 1960, the 47 ton FB-111 in 1969, the 260 ton B-70 in the 1960s, the 236 ton B-1 in 1985, and the 181 ton B-2 in 1992.) All of these were developed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons (bombs or missiles), but have proved more useful dropping non-nuclear bombs. Only the B-70 was cancelled before being deployed. The B-1 was delayed and almost cancelled, but proved that the air force would do anything to keep the heavy bombers coming.
The air force generals are now asking the aircraft designers for a subsonic, long range heavy bomber that could operate with, or without, a crew. Since the B-2 requires only a two pilots, and many commercial airliners have flight control equipment that, with a little tweaking, could eliminate the pilots altogether, the idea of heavy bomber UAV is well within the capabilities of current technology. The way this is going, it's likely that the next heavy bomber will be smaller (60-100 tons) subsonic, stealthy, uninhabited and familiar looking. And if rumors from the world of "black projects" are any indication, it is already under construction.
#2
The truth of the matter is that the AF should buy some inexpensive, low tech, low maintenance "cargo bombers", that are not stealthy or fast or maneuverable, and don't gobble fuel. Even drones would work. Not "combat" aircraft, but "combat support" aircraft.
All they do is take off, fly a programmed pattern, drop SDBs (8 to a ton) on request, and land. Since most fuel is burned getting up to altitude, it might even be worth it to alternatively have them airship hoisted.
At a high altitude, it turns on its engines to make sure everything is working, then is detached from the airship in a nose dive, accelerating to full power. Even if the engines suddenly fail, it just moves by a glide pattern down to the landing strip.
The bottom line is that aircraft like this can provide 24/7 support at maybe a tenth of the cost of a B-52, which itself is a lot cheaper than the newer bombers.
#4
No surprise here - the USAF-DOD in time will deploy those [SUPER]AURORA-styled andor similar ADVANCED TRIANGULAR AEROSPACE CRAFTS WE SEE ON "UFO FILES" + AREA 51. We're just "GOING THRU THE MOTIONS" at this time.
#5
Think TV's "PARANORMAL STATE", where PENN STATE's PARANORMAL RESEARCH SOCIETY engages in hunting Ghostsma dother strange phenomenon. AS PER TV, PSU PCORRECTLY SEARCHES FOR "FUN" GHOSTS, ETAL. - OUTSIDE OF TV, PSU ACTIVELY BUT COVERTLY COLLUDES WID GOES/GGOS + NGOS IN ROUTINE, OFTEN NON-CONSENSUAL PYWAR, ETC. EXPERIMENTATION AND OTHER ON ITS STUDENTS + AMER CITIZENS, where NEITEHR STUDENTS NOR PARENTS, ETC ARE TOLD.
#6
If they are going to make a manned bomber, they need to re-make the equivalent to the FB-111, but with stealth and better EW/Avionics and speed (supercruise). The Pig (officially, "Aardvark") was a helluva a penetration bomber, as was the EW version, the Raven.
We still havent gotten anything as good as the raven for the USAF.
One of the aspects of the Paulson bailout bill that was not clear until today is that the Treasury has no intention of running a true action for the toxic assets on bank balance sheets. An auction would tend to set very low prices on the current value of mortgage-backed paper. Based on the few transactions which have taken place in the past, this might be as low as 30 cents on a dollar.
It has been widely assumed that banks would need to take large write-downs on the devalued assets, creating the need for them to raise more capital and further dilute shareholders.
All of those assumptions were mistaken.
In testimony today, Ben Bernanke described the plan by saying "it is designed to avoid forcing banks to sell or value their mortgage assets at a `fire-sale' price. In a harsher tone than he has ever used in testimony, Bernanke spelled out the benefits that would accrue when the government can buy these mortgage assets at close to "hold to maturity" prices instead of the "fire-sale price."
The plan puts taxpayers at a substantially greater risk than a true auction system. Buying these toxic assets inexpensively gives the Treasury a chance to profit from its risk if the paper appreciates in value over time, providing taxpayers some "upside" . The more that assets appreciate, the better the chance that the American public's long-term liability is low.
What has become clear is that Treasury plans to purchase bad assets from banks at prices very near their original value. The risk to taxpayers under this program would be tremendous. If housing prices continue to fall, so will the value of the paper the government has purchased. Under this set of circumstances the public could be at risk for underwriting the great majority of the Treasury's purchases and never having a chance to recoup their investment.
Buying troubled bank assets at above where they would be valued in a free market now and at a price which is near to the potential price when they mature is a great handout to the banks but undermines almost any chance that the Treasury will ever get any meaningful yield from the bailout.
#1
Fred was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called pullets, and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced. This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now he thought he would sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.
Fred's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen but during the first week after the bells were put on, Fred noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover. To Fred's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one. Fred was so proud of old Butch he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and Butch became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well. Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on his populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention.
Vote carefully this year...the bells are not always audible.
The market storm that brought down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and other pillars of U.S. finance may have also blown holes in the portfolios of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress.
Pelosi, in her most recent financial disclosure form, reported that her husband owned between $250,000 and $500,000 of stock in AIG, which ceded majority control to the U.S. government this week in exchange for $85 billion of loans.
Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, disclosed that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had more than $2 million of AIG stock at the end of 2007, when shares were worth $58.30. AIG has fallen 85 percent this week to close yesterday at $2.69. The lawmakers' aides didn't respond to calls seeking comment.
Altogether, 56 senators and representatives had stakes in AIG, Lehman, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns Cos. or IndyMac Bancorp Inc. -- some of the biggest casualties of the market bloodbath -- according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most recent annual disclosure filings list investments as of Dec. 31, 2007, and reveal the size of holdings only within a range of values. Lawmakers may have sold shares since then.
``Lawmakers, like everyone else in America who has any kind of retirement portfolio or stock holdings, are going to be suffering,'' said Gary Kalman, a lobbyist for the Boston-based U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-advocacy organization. ``This is a serious issue. We need to have a serious response.''
Market Plunges
The Standard & Poor's 500 Index plunged 7.6 percent during the first three days of this week on news that Lehman and Merrill Lynch & Co. -- which survived two world wars and the Great Depression -- were finished as independent investment banks.
Lehman filed history's biggest bankruptcy case on Sept. 15 and Merrill sold itself to Bank of America Corp. Even after rallying yesterday, the S&P 500 is down almost 25 percent from its October 2007 peak.
Lehman shares, which traded for as much as $67.73 last November, closed yesterday at 5 cents. Merrill's shareholders are in better shape. To avoid Lehman's fate, Merrill agreed to be acquired in a stock-swap worth $26.28 per share at yesterday's closing prices. In better days, Merrill soared to as much as $98.68 in January 2007.
Bear Stearns was the first Wall Street titan to fall as home-loan defaults battered the market for mortgage-backed securities and started a chain reaction that devastated credit markets. JPMorgan Chase & Co. bought Bear Stearns in March.
Government Takeover
Earlier this month, the government took control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together accounted for almost half of the U.S. home-loan market. Fannie Mae shares had already plummeted more than 80 percent this year, to $7.04 from $39.98, before the government's Sept. 7 takeover was announced. Shares dropped to 73 cents when trading resumed the next day. Freddie Mac fell to 88 cents, after starting the year at $34.07.
Representative Robin Hayes, a North Carolina Republican, had Congress's biggest AIG stake, according to the Washington- based Center for Responsive Politics. Hayes's AIG stock was worth between $2.8 million and $11.5 million.
John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, avoided potential losses. Because of the Arizona senator's run for the White House, his wife, Cindy, last year liquidated a blind trust that had contained stock in AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Lehman. The amounts of stock she had owned weren't disclosed.
Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat, owned between $50,000 and $100,000 of Lehman shares, according to her disclosure form. Calls to offices of Hayes and Harman weren't returned.
Pasadena, California-based IndyMac's bank was seized by U.S. regulators in July, in the third-biggest U.S. bank failure. IndyMac stock closed yesterday at 6 cents, after trading earlier this year for as much as $11.32.
#1
I have to wonder how much their stakes in the financial companies that are still standing will affect their positions on the handout bailout package.
#4
It was probably also fortunate for any person in America who has an IRRA/IRA/401 K that has any investment in AIG and Lehmans. This is mile wide/inch deep problem. We all are going to suffer even if you didn't have any investment in those firms since without capital and credit the ones you do have investments in better have gobs of cash for their capital and competition programs.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
TOKYO, Sept. 23 -- Major Japanese banks, fat with cash and nearly free of toxic investments, are spotting opportunity in the global financial mess and snapping up substantial holdings on Wall Street. Because many Japanese banks and brokerage houses have vast amounts of cash while U.S. banks are increasingly desperate for it, analysts here say more major purchases are likely in coming days and weeks as the financial crisis churns on.
Nomura Holdings on Tuesday announced it would buy the European and Middle Eastern divisions of the failed Lehman Brothers investment bank -- just one day after it had picked up Lehman's Asia-Pacific franchise. Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection last week.
Japan's largest bank, Mitsubishi UFJ, said Monday it would acquire 10 to 20 percent of Morgan Stanley, a deal that could make the Tokyo bank the largest shareholder in a profitable company that is one of the crown jewels of global investing. The deal is valued at up to $8.4 billion, a relative snack for a bank with $1.15 trillion in deposits as of March.
Continued on Page 49
ImpeachBush.org, a subsidiary of International ANSWER, has set up a website named "VoteNoBailout.org" Demand that the Bailout Legislation Be Rejected
We are witnessing a bankers' coup d'etat. In the name of saving the economy from a crisis created by their own greed and immense profits, the biggest bankers have taken a country and a people hostage.
"Give us your money and tear up what's left of your Constitution or we will sink your economy," is the message from Wall Street and the Bush Administration. "Give us the power and money we demand or you will be left jobless from a new economic depression."
Under the pretext of the banking crisis, the Bush Administration is changing the way this country operates. This is not simply taking trillions of dollars from the people and giving it to the richest bankers to do with as they see fit. . . .
. . . A spineless Congress authorized Bush's illegal war in Iraq and rubber-stamped the Patriot Act. Now they are being herded like sheep again to give the White House and Wall Street dictatorial control over the people's money.
As the Instapundit cautions, "just because International A.N.S.W.E.R. is against the bailout doesn't actually guarantee that the bailout is a good idea." Still, it is something to consider.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2008 07:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've heard all the economic arguments for the bailout, but it still seems like we are rewarding the very people who DID it to us. It wasn't an accident, it was caused by greed and perpetuated by fraud and cover-up until the lid blew off the whole mess. I don't want an economic collapse, and I don't want to be jobless. But can we let a few thousand people plunder such a sizable portion of our country's wealth without any punishment? Should we reward them for it? Most of the operators in this have already gotten massive exit packages. It just seems wrong, ethically, morally, and financially. But I don't have a great enough understanding of the system to suggest a better tack. Seems like we have to do something or we're dead in the water.
#2
Of course, ANSWER is against the bailout, they're afraid it might work. They want the economy to collapse. Revolution, fighting in the streets, and all the rest of that commie BS.
#3
The problem is that the Congress, the President(s) have been too cozy with the very people that looted the economy. Before we do this bailout, we need investigations. But we cannot trust Congress with the investigations, as they are part of the problem. We need forensic auditors, the type that go into embezzlement cases. The results need to be public without spin.
I am a problem solver, but I do not see an easy way out of this one. We are only seeing the tip of the sh*tberg. Who can you turn to? Who can you trust? We need a tidal wave of sorts to put out most all of the Congress. The financiers who did this need some real punishment to serve as an example that one NEVER crosses the line again. I think that I better stop there.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/23/2008 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The exit packages, and golden parachutes, are most probably aspects of contracts the executives had with their employers who are now going belly up -- and you can't just blow off and negate those contractual provisions without doing severe irreparable damage to the foundations of US commerce. But, that's not the end of the story . . .
There are a number of standard contract principles that could be used to quash the massive reward of massive impropriety and bad judgement. For example, "impossibility of performance" and "frustration of purpose" may well be employed in a situation like this, where the executives have bankrupted the company. Also, "void as against public policy" may very well be one to use in a situation like this.
Separately, RICO and other laws that create criminal penalties for white collar crime certainly seem appropriate.
So, bail out the companies and keep the economy running. And, then take the trash out!
Posted by: James ||
09/23/2008 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A calm and sensible voice in the midst of the shouting, James. I have to admit, we benefitted from the higher interest rates in our money market accounts these past few years, that were paid out from profits the investment companies made using our money. And the trailing daughters lost money when they invested some of their savings for college in a mortgage backed security a year ago. They cashed out and left their loss on the table months ago, so it could have been worse. But the financial wallahs were only executing our investment choices; we own this as much as they do.
cingold, your expertise brings the comfort of useful knowledge.
#7
Problem as I see it, People were led to think not of a "Home" but of a "Investment' when buying a place to live.
I'm not with the thundering herd, I see "Home" and have no intention of "Selling in a few years"
Instead I plan to build what I need, live in it until I die, and pass it on to whoever in my family survives me and needs a "Home". If none, then sell it and divide the cash, I don't plan to prosper from he building I call "Home", the prosperity is owning shelter.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/23/2008 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Rush made a comment this morning that said "You know the democrats are responsible for this mess because they are NOT calling for hearings. They are not going to investigate themselves." Too true. Am I not getting something when I believe that those who can't pay their mortgages should go into foreclosure and the property then be resold. Does that resale not determine the value of the property and the loss on the original mortgage (and therefore any securities tied to that mortgage).
There is a big part of me that wants everyone who got us into this mess to feel serious pain, but I don't know if that is going to get us much. I do believe there has to be some short term intervention, but I'm not sure it needs to be as large as Paulson wants.
We need to grow ourselves out of this problem. We need to address federal spending, address major regulatory chokepoints, streamline our tax system and alter our energy policies so that we get the majority of our energy needs at home and stop sending our money overseas.
#9
One problem America has had since the 50s was mobility. People stayed with jobs for a short period of time than found a better paying one. Stayed in a house for a short period of time, then found a bigger one.
There was no real permanence built into the lifestyle the way it was in the past which just adds to the loss of community so many feel. At least outside of small town America.
#10
I have to disagree with you TW, about your assessment of James' link: the "theology" professor is engaging in "joint and several" morality, that substitutes "did you profit?" in place of "what did you do?" This inverts cause (what did you do) with effect (did you profit)? Once the inversion is made, he then tries to scrape up ANY evidence of any unintended incidental profit as proof of "guilt".
#11
Rush is only half right, remoteman. I believe there is enough blame to cover both sides of the aisle. Notice how they are all keeping their mouths shut and going along with the bailout.
#12
Except that it was intentional profit, Ptah, and intent precedes and informs action. Or at least it was intended to be intentional profit. :-( I am jointly culpable in that I chased higher returns on my investments, and if I did not know how they were achieved nor whether the AAA ratings were valid, it is because I did not ask.
#13
I will leave it to the forensic financial accountants (yes, there are such animals) to do the reverse engineering on this fiasco but there is one thing that sticks out big time - Congress telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get more progressive in servicing high risk economic demographics. And if this turns out to be racial so be it. But it is fact and it is traceable. Not that it alone created the short term capital problem but I would love to see a detailed accounting of each "toxic" asset or mortgage that is being bought. I want to know where it is, who applied for it, what documentation was used as to its credit and ability to pay. That is why, my friends, that International ANSWER and the commies and pinkos and their enablers who ignited this mess during the Clinton years don't want a bailout for the holders since it is their paper and too revealing.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/23/2008 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Congress telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get more progressive in servicing high risk economic demographics
I'm not certain about other regions, but this is precisely the case in and around Atlanta. And it isn't even close to subtle. Economic barriers had prevented the movement of traditionally lower income, Fulton county residents to the suburbs. Within the last few years developers have broken the code on low and no down-payment, easy qual, flexible interest housing (walk-away) loans and the rush to the $500-$700K 5 bedroom, 4 bath was on. In areas hardest hit, school systems became flooded with diversity and it's accompanying challenges. Schools and communities which were previously highly sought are now avoided and surrounding property values have fallen. Greedy developers, Fannie and Freddie, political kickbacks all working hand-in-hand. Our socialist government at work. It is what it is.
#15
CNBC + CNN this AM > Guest Perts - ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, DIRECTLY OR INDIR, THE US TAXPAYER WILL BE PAYING FOR THE BAILOUT + GIVING/PAYING OUT MORE TO THE USG PER ROUTINE PAYCHECK, ETC. AS A CONSEQUENCE.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden stepped out of sync again Tuesday, as the Democratic presidential nominee criticized his running mate for voicing opposition to the government bailout of American International Group early last week.
Israel's President Shimon Peres asked Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday to form a new government, a day after scandal-plagued Prime Minister Ehud Olmert officially stepped down. 
The market storm that brought down Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., American International Group Inc. and other pillars of U.S. finance may have also blown holes in the portfolios of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry and more than 50 other members of Congress. 
``Lawmakers, like everyone else in America who has any kind of retirement portfolio or stock holdings, are going to be suffering,'' said Gary Kalman, a lobbyist for the Boston-based U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-advocacy organization. ``This is a serious issue. We need to have a serious response.'' 
