When is a minor traffic accident not merely a minor traffic accident? It's when that accident involves a celebrity. Since Friday, the media has bordered on near obsession with the traffic accident involving Tiger Woods, a fire hydrant, and a tree. It's not merely a sports story. It's not merely a celebrity story. It's a news story. It's now the story that a Fox News is leading with.
As most people know sometime around 2 in the morning on Friday morning, Tiger Woods got into his SUV, backed out of the driveway, and nailed a fire hydrant and then a tree. That's all we know. We don't know why? Only Woods himself knows why and so far he's not talking. Because he's not, the endless speculation has begun.
There's a rumor that Woods was having an affair, the subject of a National Inquirer story a couple days prior. There were rumors that Woods wife had assaulted him prior to the accident or vice versa. Because Woods has been quiet thus far, the media has been given full license to speculate endlessly.
As far as mysteries go, this one is among the most boring. How interesting could a traffic accident be? If this was merely a boneheaded move by Woods, I'm sure he can afford the fine. If this was the result of a domestic dispute that's a problem for Woods and his wife. If there was a crime committed, we'll know soon enough.
What's a lot more interesting is how fascinated our society has become in this story. My rule of thumb for any celebrity story is would I care if the same thing were happening to an average person. On that level, this story fails miserably. There's absolutely no to care. Yet, most of us do because it's happening to Tiger Woods.
If ever there was proof of the coarsening nature of our celebrity culture, it this story. A minor traffic accident turns into a major story and a story that involves endless speculation. Worse yet, it's a story that runs the gammet of media: sports, gossip and straight news. All our media isn't only giving attention but endless attention to a traffic accident. We've all become voyeurs. We've all become so fascinated with Tiger Woods that we need to know every detail of his life including the state of his marriage, his driving skills, and by extension we need to know every detail of his life.
The world moves forward. Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Health care moves forward. Dubai is about to default on nearly a hundred BILLION dollars worth of debt and our media is speculating endlessly on a traffic accident. Welcome to our endless obsession with celebrity in all its ugliness.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Bernanke Pleads for More Fed Power
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke took his case for expanded Fed power to the people with an Op Ed.
It's now a standard M.O. for the Fed, and/or its backers, to scream "politicizing monetary policy" whenever anyone dares to question it, it's power, or worse tries to lessen its power. It's become the monetary policy version of the race card. That's what they did when confronted with the Ron Paul challenge of auditing the Fed.
This is becoming a mantra for the Fed. Any time, anyone challenges it on anything, they are "politicizing monetary policy". No one really understands monetary policy and so they surely don't want to be accused of "politicizing" it. What some, like me for instance, call scrutiny and checks on near absolute power, the fed calls "politicizing monetary policy".
I say beware of anyone that makes political cliches. Trotting out the race cad is a political cliche and so too is the cliche of "politicizing monetary policy".
The chairman of the Federal Reserve is concerned that congressional efforts at financial reform could weaken the central bank's ability to handle future crises and may politicize monetary policy.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke made the comments in an Op-Ed piece to appear in Sunday's Washington Post, five days before the Senate Banking committee holds a hearing on his nomination for a second term. His current four-year term expires Jan. 31.
Bernanke wrote the nation is challenged to design a financial oversight system that will "embody the lessons of the past two years and provide a robust framework for preventing future crises and the economic damage they cause."
It's now a standard M.O. for the Fed, and/or its backers, to scream "politicizing monetary policy" whenever anyone dares to question it, it's power, or worse tries to lessen its power. It's become the monetary policy version of the race card. That's what they did when confronted with the Ron Paul challenge of auditing the Fed.
The Congress, however, purposefully--and for good reason--excluded from the scope of potential GAO reviews some highly sensitive areas, notably monetary policy deliberations and operations, including open market and discount window operations. In doing so, the Congress carefully balanced the need for public accountability with the strong public policy benefits that flow from maintaining an appropriate degree of independence for the central bank in the making and execution of monetary policy. Financial markets, in particular, likely would see a grant of review authority in these areas to the GAO as a serious weakening of monetary policy independence. Because GAO reviews may be initiated at the request of members of Congress, reviews or the threat of reviews in these areas could be seen as efforts to try to influence monetary policy decisions. A perceived loss of monetary policy independence could raise fears about future inflation, leading to higher long-term interest rates and reduced economic and financial stability. We will continue to work with the Congress to provide the information it needs to oversee our activities effectively, yet in a way that does not compromise monetary policy independence.
This is becoming a mantra for the Fed. Any time, anyone challenges it on anything, they are "politicizing monetary policy". No one really understands monetary policy and so they surely don't want to be accused of "politicizing" it. What some, like me for instance, call scrutiny and checks on near absolute power, the fed calls "politicizing monetary policy".
I say beware of anyone that makes political cliches. Trotting out the race cad is a political cliche and so too is the cliche of "politicizing monetary policy".
Russian Train Crash an Act of Terror
The crash of the train that was headed from Moscow to St. Petersburg has been ruled an act of terror.
No group has been suggested as the perpetrator. Also, bodies continue to be found in the rubble and so we should expect the number of dead and injured to go up.
A homemade chemical bomb planted on the tracks in an apparent act of terrorism derailed a high-speed train in Russia carrying hundreds of people Saturday, killing at least 26 and injuring scores more.
The head of the Russian Federal Security Service told the country's news agency Interfax that traces of explosives were found at the train crash site, including chemical residue from a homemade bomb.
Alexander Borotnikov was quoted by the Interfax and RIA Novosti news as saying that an improvised explosive device equivalent to 15 pounds of TNT had detonated when the express train traveling from Moscow to St. Petersburg passed over it Friday night about 9:30 p.m.
No group has been suggested as the perpetrator. Also, bodies continue to be found in the rubble and so we should expect the number of dead and injured to go up.
The Future of ACORN
If you want to know what will happen to ACORN as a result of all the scandals and controversies, this story from Connecticut is a microcosm.
So, more and more ACORN chapters are moving away from their current structure which is one organization where all the local chapters answer to a national board to a federation. Where have I heard that term federation in relation to ACORN? Oh yeah, it was in my interview with Wade Rathke. He explained that ACORN is one organization whereas COI, what Rathke now runs, is a federation. Here's how Rathke described the difference.
As we speak, more and more local ACORN chapters are becoming autonomous creating their own funding streams, boards, etc. They would only work with the national organization on national issues but be totally autonomous.
That's how COI (Community Organizations International) is structured as well. There are currently 7 different units within COI. Each is autonomous from each other. Now, ACORN itself is moving to structure itself in the same manner.
Now, let's not start any rumors. I am not saying, and certainly Wade Rathke isn't, that the hundred plus local ACORN affiliates are about to orchestrate a coup and suddenly move their newly formed FEDERATION to COI and move under his umbrella. That's not happening. Instead, the locals have realized that the national organization has let them down, tarnished their name, and is no longer a source for creating revenue anyways.
Local chapters like the one in Bridgeport, Ct. are themselves not struggling. There are many like this. They've now realized that answering to the national organization is a growing liability. So, they are moving themselves to structuring themselves as a federation so that they would only need to partner themselves with the national organization when its convenient. Otherwise, they cut ties with them entirely. More than that, the name ACORN will be kept locally if it's still perceived positively.
Now, many conservatives will wonder where the name ACORN can still be positive. Remember, this group is a very effective grassroots organizations. In this local areas where ACORN has maintained a strong local presence for years, like in Bridgeport, Ct., the locals view ACORN very positively. At the same time, if the ACORN name becomes to toxic, all the locals in the new federation will be able to change their own name to whatever they want. That's one of the benefits of being a federation.
What's important to the current debate is that the locals see that the national org's jig is up and they are now jumping ship. By moving to cut ties from their unified structure and move to a federation structure, it also means the locals are cutting away from the stain that the national org has spilled on the group as a whole. The national organization's power over ACORN will be next to nothing. They'll no longer have any operational control over any chapter. They'll work together on "national issues" but the national group can't maintain their own funding, has a toxic brand, and facing a plethora of bad press and lawsuits. How many national campaigns can they fund that way? So, if ever there was proof that the national ACORN is through, it's the growing movement of local chapters to turn themselves into a federation.
Its political allies fled. And with its national organization fighting for its life and unable to give any money, ACORN of Bridgeport is doing what other chapters have been doing across the nation, going independent, sort of.
This month, the group began a campaign to raise money and create two local nonprofits, one to concentrate on social issues, the other on political action. To be clear, the plan is to continue to work with other chapters on national issues through a federation, according to Emeline Bravo-Blackwood, a small business owner who is leading the effort to transform the group in Bridgeport.
So, more and more ACORN chapters are moving away from their current structure which is one organization where all the local chapters answer to a national board to a federation. Where have I heard that term federation in relation to ACORN? Oh yeah, it was in my interview with Wade Rathke. He explained that ACORN is one organization whereas COI, what Rathke now runs, is a federation. Here's how Rathke described the difference.
a federation is a combination of autonomous organizations, like the AFL-CIO as an example, as opposed to being a single operating entity as ACORN is/was and an individual union, like SEIU for example is.
As we speak, more and more local ACORN chapters are becoming autonomous creating their own funding streams, boards, etc. They would only work with the national organization on national issues but be totally autonomous.
That's how COI (Community Organizations International) is structured as well. There are currently 7 different units within COI. Each is autonomous from each other. Now, ACORN itself is moving to structure itself in the same manner.
Now, let's not start any rumors. I am not saying, and certainly Wade Rathke isn't, that the hundred plus local ACORN affiliates are about to orchestrate a coup and suddenly move their newly formed FEDERATION to COI and move under his umbrella. That's not happening. Instead, the locals have realized that the national organization has let them down, tarnished their name, and is no longer a source for creating revenue anyways.
Local chapters like the one in Bridgeport, Ct. are themselves not struggling. There are many like this. They've now realized that answering to the national organization is a growing liability. So, they are moving themselves to structuring themselves as a federation so that they would only need to partner themselves with the national organization when its convenient. Otherwise, they cut ties with them entirely. More than that, the name ACORN will be kept locally if it's still perceived positively.
Now, many conservatives will wonder where the name ACORN can still be positive. Remember, this group is a very effective grassroots organizations. In this local areas where ACORN has maintained a strong local presence for years, like in Bridgeport, Ct., the locals view ACORN very positively. At the same time, if the ACORN name becomes to toxic, all the locals in the new federation will be able to change their own name to whatever they want. That's one of the benefits of being a federation.
What's important to the current debate is that the locals see that the national org's jig is up and they are now jumping ship. By moving to cut ties from their unified structure and move to a federation structure, it also means the locals are cutting away from the stain that the national org has spilled on the group as a whole. The national organization's power over ACORN will be next to nothing. They'll no longer have any operational control over any chapter. They'll work together on "national issues" but the national group can't maintain their own funding, has a toxic brand, and facing a plethora of bad press and lawsuits. How many national campaigns can they fund that way? So, if ever there was proof that the national ACORN is through, it's the growing movement of local chapters to turn themselves into a federation.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Video, Quote and Word of the Day
disport
to frolic
The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice we give to others.
Anonymous
Sarah Palin Conservative Populist
Andrew Jackson was this country's first President that didn't represent the elite in our society. When he won, the party in the White House was attended by all sorts of folks that we'd now call lower middle class. He was America's first populist leader. He won by consolidating his vote around all sorts that had never participated in the process before him.
Every politician would like to be considered a populist because such a moniker spans ideologies. It simply means a politician of the people. William Jennings Bryan rode a populist wave to nearly two White House elections.
Over the last century, however, populism has almost always been associated with liberals. That may all change. Sarah Palin will almost certainly attempt to ride a conservative populist wave to future political fortunes.
Last night, I attended a Thanksgiving dinner with relatives. Both are professors at a major university. Their friends are also professors at the same university. We spoke of politics throughout the evening. While their political persuasion differs from mine greatly (for instance one friend was in favor of single payer health care), the conversations were always lively and cordial.
That was except when the subject of Palin came up. Everyone had a disgust for the woman that's difficult to describe unless you're there to hear the contempt and condescension in their voice. One person couldn't believe that I belong to a Sarah Palin Facebook page. One individual even acknowledged the good work she did in Alaska, including negotiating a good deal for the citizens of her state with the oil companies.
To folks like that, it isn't about accomplishment. One individual said that in this "day and age our Presidents must come from an ELITE university". Keep in mind, Andrew Jackson could barely read. Ronald Reagan went to the "elite" university of Euraka College. Sarah Palin will never win over folks like this and we all know many like them.
In fact, not only will she never win them over but they will be her best campaigning friend. Every single person at this party, and certainly everyone that holds her in contempt (as opposed to simply being uncomfortable, against her, or unsure of her), would be considered an elite by most.
In fact, if Sarah Palin were to become President it would be uniquely American story that most of us would be proud of. She rose from nothing with no connections and only through the force of her own will. She didn't go to an elite school. She doesn't run in elite circles. That makes her like most people as opposed to the elites.
It also makes her the perfect person to run a populist campaign. Of course, the elites have no use for her, that's what makes them elites. Bryan and Jackson weren't trying to appeal to the big wigs and power brokers. They were trying to appeal to the every man. That's what Palin would appeal to as well.
Let's face it those in fly over country, so to speak, already believe, with good reason, that the elites hold them in contempt. If the elites hold Palin in contempt, that only makes her that much more appealing to them. She has a simple anti government message that can easily appeal to the masses. The best part, for Palin, is that her enemies will help sell that message.
Every politician would like to be considered a populist because such a moniker spans ideologies. It simply means a politician of the people. William Jennings Bryan rode a populist wave to nearly two White House elections.
Over the last century, however, populism has almost always been associated with liberals. That may all change. Sarah Palin will almost certainly attempt to ride a conservative populist wave to future political fortunes.
Last night, I attended a Thanksgiving dinner with relatives. Both are professors at a major university. Their friends are also professors at the same university. We spoke of politics throughout the evening. While their political persuasion differs from mine greatly (for instance one friend was in favor of single payer health care), the conversations were always lively and cordial.
That was except when the subject of Palin came up. Everyone had a disgust for the woman that's difficult to describe unless you're there to hear the contempt and condescension in their voice. One person couldn't believe that I belong to a Sarah Palin Facebook page. One individual even acknowledged the good work she did in Alaska, including negotiating a good deal for the citizens of her state with the oil companies.
To folks like that, it isn't about accomplishment. One individual said that in this "day and age our Presidents must come from an ELITE university". Keep in mind, Andrew Jackson could barely read. Ronald Reagan went to the "elite" university of Euraka College. Sarah Palin will never win over folks like this and we all know many like them.
In fact, not only will she never win them over but they will be her best campaigning friend. Every single person at this party, and certainly everyone that holds her in contempt (as opposed to simply being uncomfortable, against her, or unsure of her), would be considered an elite by most.
In fact, if Sarah Palin were to become President it would be uniquely American story that most of us would be proud of. She rose from nothing with no connections and only through the force of her own will. She didn't go to an elite school. She doesn't run in elite circles. That makes her like most people as opposed to the elites.
It also makes her the perfect person to run a populist campaign. Of course, the elites have no use for her, that's what makes them elites. Bryan and Jackson weren't trying to appeal to the big wigs and power brokers. They were trying to appeal to the every man. That's what Palin would appeal to as well.
Let's face it those in fly over country, so to speak, already believe, with good reason, that the elites hold them in contempt. If the elites hold Palin in contempt, that only makes her that much more appealing to them. She has a simple anti government message that can easily appeal to the masses. The best part, for Palin, is that her enemies will help sell that message.
Council Winners
The Council Winners are up.
Council Submissions
First placewith 2 1/3 points! – The Razor - Obama The Weak Horse
Second place with 2 points – Mere Rhetoric - Obama: We’re Giving Iran More Time Because Of Their “Unsettled Political Situation”
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – Joshuapundit - Navy SEALS Face Court martial – For Capturing Wanted Terrorist
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – Soccer Dad - Clinton’s faulty memory, part ii
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – Bookworm Room - Being a contrarian and NOT buying (or being) green
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – The Glittering Eye - The Green And The Black
Non-Council Submissions
First place with 2 1/3 points! – The Strata-Sphere - Alarmist hide truth about (lack of ) global warming
Second place with 1 2/3 points – Daled Amos - State Department: Obama Administration has accomplished more than 8 years of Bush
Third place with 1 1/3 points – Robin of Berkeley/American Thinker - The Wilding of Sarah Palin
Fourth place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Chessler Chronicles - Why Is America Still Allied To Saudi Arabia?
Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – Sultan Knish - Obama Goes Mao
Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – New Atlanticist - Obama and Afghanistan: No Good Choices
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Ken Blackwell/The American Spectator Blog - Welcome Back, Carter
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Edge - 36 Arguments For The Existence Of God
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Freakonomics - Shovel ready or ready to shovel?
Council Submissions
First placewith 2 1/3 points! – The Razor - Obama The Weak Horse
Second place with 2 points – Mere Rhetoric - Obama: We’re Giving Iran More Time Because Of Their “Unsettled Political Situation”
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – Joshuapundit - Navy SEALS Face Court martial – For Capturing Wanted Terrorist
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – Soccer Dad - Clinton’s faulty memory, part ii
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – Bookworm Room - Being a contrarian and NOT buying (or being) green
Third place with 2/3 point – (Tie*) – The Glittering Eye - The Green And The Black
Non-Council Submissions
First place with 2 1/3 points! – The Strata-Sphere - Alarmist hide truth about (lack of ) global warming
Second place with 1 2/3 points – Daled Amos - State Department: Obama Administration has accomplished more than 8 years of Bush
Third place with 1 1/3 points – Robin of Berkeley/American Thinker - The Wilding of Sarah Palin
Fourth place with 2/3 points – (Tie*) – The Chessler Chronicles - Why Is America Still Allied To Saudi Arabia?
Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – Sultan Knish - Obama Goes Mao
Fourth place with 2/3 points(Tie*) – New Atlanticist - Obama and Afghanistan: No Good Choices
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Ken Blackwell/The American Spectator Blog - Welcome Back, Carter
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Edge - 36 Arguments For The Existence Of God
Fifth place with 1/3 point(Tie*) – Freakonomics - Shovel ready or ready to shovel?
IAEA Censures Iran
The IAEA has handed down its "punishment" on Iran.
The article goes on to say that this censure was "significant" for two reasons: 1) it received unanimous approval from Security Council including Russia and China and that this 2) signals a purpose to act more aggressively including sanctions.
The first point is accurate. Russia and China rarely back any action against Iran. The second point remains to be seen. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. told the Chinese that if they didn't act, Israel would soon bomb Iran leading to much higher oil prices. This is all also true. China also must recognize this themselves. Yet, they've never once moved for any significant action against Iran. This latest move was nothing more than a strongly worded letter. Real action has yet to materialize.
The U.N. nuclear agency's board censured Iran on Friday, with 25 nations backing a resolution that demands Tehran immediately mothball its newly revealed nuclear facility and heed U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on it to stop uranium enrichment.
Iran remained defiant, with its chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency declaring that his country would resist "pressure, resolutions, sanction(s) and threat of military attack."
The article goes on to say that this censure was "significant" for two reasons: 1) it received unanimous approval from Security Council including Russia and China and that this 2) signals a purpose to act more aggressively including sanctions.
The first point is accurate. Russia and China rarely back any action against Iran. The second point remains to be seen. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. told the Chinese that if they didn't act, Israel would soon bomb Iran leading to much higher oil prices. This is all also true. China also must recognize this themselves. Yet, they've never once moved for any significant action against Iran. This latest move was nothing more than a strongly worded letter. Real action has yet to materialize.
Obama Aides Met With Health Care Lobbyists
That should surprise no one. Lobbyists wield all sorts of power in D.C.
In fact, this story is only important because Obama promised to end such practices in his
White House. He made a point of telling the country that the influence of lobbyists would be ended in his administration. Clearly, that's not happening.
President Obama's top aides met frequently with lobbyists and health care industry heavyweights as his administration pieced together a national health care overhaul, according to White House visitor records obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.
The records disclose visits by a broad cross-section of the people most involved in the health care debate, weighted heavily toward those who want to overhaul the system.
The list includes George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association, and numerous lobbyists.
In fact, this story is only important because Obama promised to end such practices in his
White House. He made a point of telling the country that the influence of lobbyists would be ended in his administration. Clearly, that's not happening.
Morning Market Report
It will be a short trading day today. It may not however be a quiet one. The futures are being rocked by news that the country of Dubai is asking creditors for a six month moratorium for its two biggest companies, Dubai World and Nakheel.
Dubai is asking for six months while the two attempt to restructure the debt. Shares in Europe were off about 3% yesterday on the news. While equities are responding unfavorably to the news, bonds are responding quite favorably. The ten year U.S. Treasury bond is currently trading at 3.21%, the lowest it's been in months. The yield spread has also tightened between the 2 and 10 year bond and is now at 2.52%. The 3 month t bills are better this morning but still above 0%. They're currently at .02% after dropping into negative rate territory for parts of last week. Oil is down over $3 a barrel to $74.02 a barrel. Gold is also taking a major breather this morning. It's off by over $25 an ounce is currently trading at $1161.50 an ounce.
Meanwhile, the dollar is performing better for the most part this morning. It's up by .85% against the Euro, up by .84% against the British Pound but down slightly by .12% against Japanese Yen. It still maintains the inverse relationship with equities and thus the troubling trend that causes.
In the Far East, the Hang Seng was down 4.84%, the NIKKEI was down 3.21%, and the Straits Time Index was unchanged. The broad Chinese index was off 2.36%. In Europe, they had taken their beatings yesterday. Most indices were up slightly this morning. The FTSE in London was up .1%, the DAX in Germany was up .21% and the Spanish index was up .13%.
The three major U.S. indices are each down more than 2% this morning. According to Bloomberg, the biggest creditors for Dubai are HSBC, Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Investment analyst Mohammed El-Erian told CNBC that this fallout is a "correction not a crisis"
Only time will tell on that. It's not often that countries ask for their debt to be restructured and Dubai's economy was booming only a couple years back. Most importantly, the news continued to trend of the inverse relationship between the dollar and equities.
Dubai, which became a trading and tourism hub and enjoyed a construction boom before the crisis, said it would ask creditors of Dubai World and Nakheel to agree a 6-month standstill on billions of dollars of debt which it is seeking
to restructure.
Dubai World has $59 billion of liabilities, most of Dubai's total debt of $80 billion. Nakheel is the builder of three palm shaped islands off Dubai.
Dubai is asking for six months while the two attempt to restructure the debt. Shares in Europe were off about 3% yesterday on the news. While equities are responding unfavorably to the news, bonds are responding quite favorably. The ten year U.S. Treasury bond is currently trading at 3.21%, the lowest it's been in months. The yield spread has also tightened between the 2 and 10 year bond and is now at 2.52%. The 3 month t bills are better this morning but still above 0%. They're currently at .02% after dropping into negative rate territory for parts of last week. Oil is down over $3 a barrel to $74.02 a barrel. Gold is also taking a major breather this morning. It's off by over $25 an ounce is currently trading at $1161.50 an ounce.
Meanwhile, the dollar is performing better for the most part this morning. It's up by .85% against the Euro, up by .84% against the British Pound but down slightly by .12% against Japanese Yen. It still maintains the inverse relationship with equities and thus the troubling trend that causes.
In the Far East, the Hang Seng was down 4.84%, the NIKKEI was down 3.21%, and the Straits Time Index was unchanged. The broad Chinese index was off 2.36%. In Europe, they had taken their beatings yesterday. Most indices were up slightly this morning. The FTSE in London was up .1%, the DAX in Germany was up .21% and the Spanish index was up .13%.
The three major U.S. indices are each down more than 2% this morning. According to Bloomberg, the biggest creditors for Dubai are HSBC, Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc was the biggest underwriter of loans to Dubai World, the state company seeking to reschedule debt, while HSBC Holdings Plc has
the most at risk in the United Arab Emirates, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.
RBS, the largest U.K. government-controlled bank, arranged $2.3 billion, or 17 percent, of Dubai World loans since January 2007, JPMorgan said in a report
today, citing Dealogic data. HSBC, Europe’s biggest bank, has the “largest absolute exposure” in the U.A.E. with $17 billion of loans in 2008, JPMorgan said, citing the Emirates Banks Association. Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC may be owed $1.9 billion by Dubai World, making it the largest creditor outside the emirate, said two people familiar with the companies.
Investment analyst Mohammed El-Erian told CNBC that this fallout is a "correction not a crisis"
Dubai's debt woes may serve as a catalyst for a correction in stock markets but it does not signal a new crisis, investment manager Mohammed El-Erian told
CNBC Friday.Investors dumped stocks Thursday and Friday and took refuge in the dollar
after Dubai announced it had asked for a 6-month standstill on debt of around $59 billion. Some analysts said the fears will be short-lived and the situation creates buying opportunities.
Only time will tell on that. It's not often that countries ask for their debt to be restructured and Dubai's economy was booming only a couple years back. Most importantly, the news continued to trend of the inverse relationship between the dollar and equities.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
The Obama Ape Controversy
A couple days back, a web site propped up a photo of Michelle Obama as an ape. The photo is obscene and offensive and that's all that should be said about it.
The backstory, however, is of interest. The website, which I can't track down, put up this photo and figured out how to get recognized at the top of several word searches from Google. The folks at Google didn't notice that they were creating traffic for this obscene photo. By the time they did, the photo had travelled to several other sites.
Eventually, Google did take down links to this site but not because of the obscene nature of the site. Instead, the site had collected several viruses. That's an often side effect to creating obscene material. Hackers try and punish you by creating viruses on your site. I found that out when doing a series on racist web sites which also are under the constant threat of virus.
The only story I've found so far on this is one on a Russian language site.
Имидж, демонстрирующий Мишель в виде примата, появляется в поиске картинок на Google, на одной из первых страниц. Призывы заблокировать доступ к оскорбительному изображению были отвергнуты. Пресс-представитель Google заявил, что доступ к сайту, где впервые появилась картинка, был заблокирован из-за того, что сайт содержал вирусы. Изображение, однако, вскоре было продублировано десятком других сайтов и вновь появилось в топе поисковика.
Essentially, the story says everything I've said and also says that according to Google, they don't censor based on content. As such, such offensive material wouldn't necessarily be censored from Google searches. In fact, that's true. You can find porn, hate sites, bomb making sites, on such search engines as Google. Google took down the site after the virus was discovered. Google represetatives said that they will take down a site from their searches if a virus is discovered but they won't take down a site based on content, because that's a free speech issue.
That's a specious argument. No one has the right to appear on a Google search. As such, Google can take any site down from their searches for any reason. They can, as a matter of policy, allow all content on their search engines because Google doesn't want to self censor based on content. That said, that wouldn't be a matter of law but an internal policy.
In fact, I would agree with such a policy because offensive is a subjective idea. Once any search engine begins to censor based on content anything can become offensive and free speech would be infringed. That said, that free speech would be infringed by a private company on their own internet sphere which they would have every right to do.
Copenhagen and Sovereignty
Several months ago, Dick Morris was furious over an obscure agreement that President Obama made with the IMF.
Morris was furious that Obama had made an agreement that allowed the IMF and the G20 to make binding financial regulations that would govern all companies in any of the G20 nations. As such, by Morris' estimation, that means that European diplomats and bureaucrats would be in charge of setting banking laws for our domestic banks. Never, in Morris' estimation, had our own sovereignty been challenged.
The global climate change conference could have had a similar ramifications. Currently, all expectations are that the conference will lead to limited agreements.
That's largely because the countries involved can't agree on how to tackle the problem and also because during worldwide economic crisis, there's no appetite for this sort of regulation. Still, if there were sweeping agreements, they would alsobe yet another move toward limiting our own sovereignty and giving Europeans the power to regulate domestic industry. For this reason, there was always a great deal of objection to the summit.
During the campaign, while speaking to a massive crowd in Germany, candidate Barack Obama announced himself a "citizen of the world". This was met with skepticism in many quarters. The President of the United States should represent the interests of the U.S. first, second, third, and always. They are part of the U.S. and our interests are all that matter. What has happened so far is NOT Earth shattering. Don't believe that some European bureaucrat is about to tell some Chase banker in Chicago what kind of checking account they can offer. They aren't and they can't. What should be concerning is just how apt President Obama is to sign onto an agreement that allows just that.
President Bush dismissed the Kyoto Treaty out of hand for exactly this reason. The Europeans screamed and moaned and his perception there was cemented with this move very early in his presidency. Yet, he represented the interests of the U.S. no matter how unpopular that made him abroad. President Obama had better understand his own job description soon.
The result of this conclave, which France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy hailed as “revolutionary,” was that all the nations agreed to coordinate their economic policies and programs and to submit them to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for comment and approval. While the G-20 nations and the IMF are, for now, only going to use “moral suasion” on those nations found not to be in compliance, talk of sanctions looms on the horizon.
While the specific policies to which the U.S. committed itself (reducing the deficit and strengthening regulatory oversight of financial institutions) are laudable in themselves, the process and the precedent are frightening. We are to subject our most basic national economic policies to the review of a group of nations that includes autocratic Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Even though our GDP is three times bigger than the second largest economy (Japan) and equal to that of 13 of the G-20 nations combined, we are to sit politely by with our one vote and submit to the global consensus. Europe has five votes (U.K., France, Germany, Italy and the EU) while we have but one.
Morris was furious that Obama had made an agreement that allowed the IMF and the G20 to make binding financial regulations that would govern all companies in any of the G20 nations. As such, by Morris' estimation, that means that European diplomats and bureaucrats would be in charge of setting banking laws for our domestic banks. Never, in Morris' estimation, had our own sovereignty been challenged.
The global climate change conference could have had a similar ramifications. Currently, all expectations are that the conference will lead to limited agreements.
President Barack Obama's decision to drop in on the international climate conference in Copenhagen next month lends some star power to an event that's lost much of its luster — but at considerable risk for Obama himself.
“This could be one hell of a global game changer with big reverberations here at home,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the lead sponsor of climate change legislation in the Senate. “The fact that the president will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the president's prestige on the line.”
And therein lies the problem for Obama. The upside potential for his visit is limited; expectations for the conference have dropped dramatically over the past few weeks, with nearly universal acknowledgment that the talks are very likely to result in a only limited political agreement, rather than in a legally binding treaty on global warming.
That's largely because the countries involved can't agree on how to tackle the problem and also because during worldwide economic crisis, there's no appetite for this sort of regulation. Still, if there were sweeping agreements, they would alsobe yet another move toward limiting our own sovereignty and giving Europeans the power to regulate domestic industry. For this reason, there was always a great deal of objection to the summit.
With less than 40 days remaining before the governments of the world convene to
hammer out a save-our-species style of agreement on Climate Change, there is a lot of bustling going on in Ottawa. For one thing this is an especially busy time for the staffers behind our politicians. I’m talking about those brave unheralded souls running around Ottawa buying plane tickets, planning dinners, and ensuring the business-attire economy remains recession-proof. Oh yes, the assistant armies of Ottawa are working all hours to ensure that our Government’s representatives are going to look good, eat-well, and rest comfortably while discussing the future of the planet in Copenhagen (COP15).
During the campaign, while speaking to a massive crowd in Germany, candidate Barack Obama announced himself a "citizen of the world". This was met with skepticism in many quarters. The President of the United States should represent the interests of the U.S. first, second, third, and always. They are part of the U.S. and our interests are all that matter. What has happened so far is NOT Earth shattering. Don't believe that some European bureaucrat is about to tell some Chase banker in Chicago what kind of checking account they can offer. They aren't and they can't. What should be concerning is just how apt President Obama is to sign onto an agreement that allows just that.
President Bush dismissed the Kyoto Treaty out of hand for exactly this reason. The Europeans screamed and moaned and his perception there was cemented with this move very early in his presidency. Yet, he represented the interests of the U.S. no matter how unpopular that made him abroad. President Obama had better understand his own job description soon.
The Young the Old All Against Obamacare
I normally don't give too much attention to polls but sometimes they're revealing. Dick Morris has the latest.
This poll is important because old people, 65 and older, are already overwhelmingly against Obamacare. Now, young people are against it. You can see that there aren't too many ages left.
The old are against Obamacare because cuts in Medicare will affect them. Young are against it because it will force everyone to carry insurance which winds up being a tax on them.
The Democrats are trying to convince themselves that as long as they pass sweeping health care reform all will be well in the end. In fact, that's exactly what Bill Clinton told the caucus earlier this month. I expect a short term bump for Obama and Democrats if they do pass reform, but it will be short term.
The public is strongly against this reform. Polls now put support in the low 40's and even high 30's in some polls. The Democrats will do this with no more than 2 Republicans in both caucus voting with them. As such, they will shove a deeply unpopular bill onto the public. That's a recipe for political suicide.
Just so we're clear, according to Zogby, it doesn't matter what age you are, you're against Obamacare.
Age
Percentage Support/Oppose Obama Plan
Under 30 25/65
30-49 28/60
50-64 41/50
Over 65 32/55
Books will be written about how poorly this was mismanaged. The public is concerned about the economy, jobs, and the deficit. The democrats are shoving a health care package that will raise taxes cost a $trillion down the throat of the public. They continue to move forward long after it's clear that no one wants it.
Previously, we reported to you that our national polling showed that the under-30 voters were the strongest supporters of the Obama healthcare initiative.
While seniors opposed it by almost 2-to-1 and voters ages 30-64 opposed it by five- to 10-point margins, the under-30 voters backed his program by 58-30.
This poll is important because old people, 65 and older, are already overwhelmingly against Obamacare. Now, young people are against it. You can see that there aren't too many ages left.
The old are against Obamacare because cuts in Medicare will affect them. Young are against it because it will force everyone to carry insurance which winds up being a tax on them.
The Democrats are trying to convince themselves that as long as they pass sweeping health care reform all will be well in the end. In fact, that's exactly what Bill Clinton told the caucus earlier this month. I expect a short term bump for Obama and Democrats if they do pass reform, but it will be short term.
The public is strongly against this reform. Polls now put support in the low 40's and even high 30's in some polls. The Democrats will do this with no more than 2 Republicans in both caucus voting with them. As such, they will shove a deeply unpopular bill onto the public. That's a recipe for political suicide.
Just so we're clear, according to Zogby, it doesn't matter what age you are, you're against Obamacare.
Age
Percentage Support/Oppose Obama Plan
Under 30 25/65
30-49 28/60
50-64 41/50
Over 65 32/55
Books will be written about how poorly this was mismanaged. The public is concerned about the economy, jobs, and the deficit. The democrats are shoving a health care package that will raise taxes cost a $trillion down the throat of the public. They continue to move forward long after it's clear that no one wants it.
The Party Crashers
There's a growing controversy over two party crashers at this week's state dinner at the White House.
White House apparently takes a security breakdown as well as some kind of nerve. The Secret Service is investigating its own security procedures after determining that a Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, managed to slip into Tuesday night's state dinner at the
White House even though they were not on the guest list, agency spokesman Ed Donovan said. President Obama was never in any danger because the party crashers went through the same security screening for weapons as the 300-plus people actually invited to the dinner honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Donovan said.
The couple even snagged a photo with the Vice President. 
This isn't merely embarrasing but dangerous. If party crashers can slip into the White House, then anyone can, and our president is at risk.
This isn't merely embarrasing but dangerous. If party crashers can slip into the White House, then anyone can, and our president is at risk. After a full investigation, we should all expect those responsible for the breach to no longer have their jobs.
The E2 Night Club Disaster Verdict
On February 17, 2003, there was commotion and confusion at the popular Chicago Southside nightclub E2. That commotion caused a stampede and the stampeded left 21 people dead. On September 23rd of this year, a Chicago area jury found guilt and yesterday punishment was handed down. The two owners, Calvin Hollins and Dwain Kyles, each face up to two years in prison.
The sentence stems from the owner's failure to fix an upstairs area that was flagged by inspectors the year prior.
Besides some family members decrying the verdict, the usual suspect of politicians and activists did the same, including Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson. Both of them suggested that if this were a predominantly white club, E2 was in a posh African American area, that everything would have been different.
More than one power broker has suggested that police and first responders were at fault.
Police and first responders are almost always immune from prosecution in such a scenario.
The comparison to a white nightclub is difficult to make since such tragedies are rare. Still, in that same year, the Station nightclub had a massive fire caused by pyrotechnics during the course of a performance by the band Great White. That nightclub's owners, Michael and Jeffrey Derderian, later plead no contest to 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter and Great White's manager, Daniel Biechele, plead guilty to similar charges. All received years in prison though all three have since been released from prison for good behavior with the blessing of the victim's families.
Cook County judge handed down prison sentences Tuesday to the former owners of a Chicago nightspot where 21 clubgoers were killed in a stampede, but some families of the dead aren’t calling it justice.
“The spotlight has been put on the owners so it can deflect away from what actually happened that night,” said Cheryl A. Rainey, whose 25-year-old niece Nicole Rainey, died in the Feb. 17, 2003, tragedy at the E2 nightclub.
The sentence stems from the owner's failure to fix an upstairs area that was flagged by inspectors the year prior.
Besides some family members decrying the verdict, the usual suspect of politicians and activists did the same, including Bobby Rush and Jesse Jackson. Both of them suggested that if this were a predominantly white club, E2 was in a posh African American area, that everything would have been different.
More than one power broker has suggested that police and first responders were at fault.
There was no justice in the sentencing today, because many of us feel no death had to occur had the first responders responded differently, had they come out in rescue mode, rather than coming out for a ‘riot’ considering the number of police vs. the number of ambulances,
Police and first responders are almost always immune from prosecution in such a scenario.
The comparison to a white nightclub is difficult to make since such tragedies are rare. Still, in that same year, the Station nightclub had a massive fire caused by pyrotechnics during the course of a performance by the band Great White. That nightclub's owners, Michael and Jeffrey Derderian, later plead no contest to 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter and Great White's manager, Daniel Biechele, plead guilty to similar charges. All received years in prison though all three have since been released from prison for good behavior with the blessing of the victim's families.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Navy Seals to be Indicted
Navy Seals involved in the capture of a wanted terrorist in Iraq may face assault charges.
The "key" piece of evidence if you will is a bloody lip on the suspect, Ahmed Hashim Abed. Abed is the alleged ringleader in the infamous burning of four contractors in Fallujah that served as the bloody symbol of how out of control things had gotten in Iraq and especially Fallujah.
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
The "key" piece of evidence if you will is a bloody lip on the suspect, Ahmed Hashim Abed. Abed is the alleged ringleader in the infamous burning of four contractors in Fallujah that served as the bloody symbol of how out of control things had gotten in Iraq and especially Fallujah.
Video, Quote and Word of the Day
legerdemain
sleight of hand
Sometimes I give myself admirable advice, but I am incapable of taking it.
Mary Wortley Montagu
Council Nominations
The Council Submissions are up.
Council Submissions
Mere Rhetoric - Obama: We’re Giving Iran More Time Because Of Their “Unsettled Political Situation”
Joshuapundit - Navy SEALS Face Court martial – For Capturing Wanted Terrorist
Right Truth- Bible verse attributed to Barack Obama
Bookworm Room - Being a contrarian and NOT buying (or being) green
The Provocateur - The Put Back Amendment
The Colossus of Rhodey - Hard to argue? Not really
The Razor - The Weak Horse Named Obama
Rhymes With Right - A question I’ve been raising
The Glittering Eye - The Green and the Black
Soccer Dad - Clinton’s faulty memory, part ii
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: The Watcher – Ken Blackwell/American Spectator Blog- Welcome Back Carter
Submitted By: Soccer Dad – Daled Amos - State Department: Obama Administration has accomplished more than 8 years of Bush
Submitted By: Joshuapundit – Robin of Berkeley/American Thinker - The Wilding of Sarah Palin
Submitted By: Right Truth – the Chessler Chronicles - Why is America still allied with Saudi Arabia?
Submitted By: Bookworm Room – The Strata-Sphere - Alarmist hide truth about (lack of ) global warming
Submitted By: The Provocateur – HSA Scoop - The only real solution to health care reform
Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey – Edge - 36 Arguments for the existence of God
Submitted By: The Razor – Sultan Knish - Obama goes Mao
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right – Quin Hilyer/ the American Spectator Blog - Justice Depart ment Recusal List
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – New Atlanticist - Obama and Afghanistan: No good choices
Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric – Freaknomics - Shovel ready or ready to shovel?
Council Submissions
Mere Rhetoric - Obama: We’re Giving Iran More Time Because Of Their “Unsettled Political Situation”
Joshuapundit - Navy SEALS Face Court martial – For Capturing Wanted Terrorist
Right Truth- Bible verse attributed to Barack Obama
Bookworm Room - Being a contrarian and NOT buying (or being) green
The Provocateur - The Put Back Amendment
The Colossus of Rhodey - Hard to argue? Not really
The Razor - The Weak Horse Named Obama
Rhymes With Right - A question I’ve been raising
The Glittering Eye - The Green and the Black
Soccer Dad - Clinton’s faulty memory, part ii
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: The Watcher – Ken Blackwell/American Spectator Blog- Welcome Back Carter
Submitted By: Soccer Dad – Daled Amos - State Department: Obama Administration has accomplished more than 8 years of Bush
Submitted By: Joshuapundit – Robin of Berkeley/American Thinker - The Wilding of Sarah Palin
Submitted By: Right Truth – the Chessler Chronicles - Why is America still allied with Saudi Arabia?
Submitted By: Bookworm Room – The Strata-Sphere - Alarmist hide truth about (lack of ) global warming
Submitted By: The Provocateur – HSA Scoop - The only real solution to health care reform
Submitted By: The Colossus of Rhodey – Edge - 36 Arguments for the existence of God
Submitted By: The Razor – Sultan Knish - Obama goes Mao
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right – Quin Hilyer/ the American Spectator Blog - Justice Depart ment Recusal List
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – New Atlanticist - Obama and Afghanistan: No good choices
Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric – Freaknomics - Shovel ready or ready to shovel?
Morning Market Report
We had a somewhat monumental piece of economic data today. The weekly first time jobless claims fell below 500,000 for the first time since last September. The most recent number is 466,000. On the other hand, durable good orders fell in October, and last week, mortgage applications fell yet again despite having near all time lows. Oil is trading at $76.08. Gold is at an all time high of $1180 an ounce after India announced it may buy a great deal of Gold. The ten year U.S. Treasury is currently at 3.31%. The yield spread between the two and ten year is steady at 2.58% and the three month t bill is back to paying zero interest after paying a negative rate for a couple days.
The Dow along with the other two indices are about even so far this morning after about a half hour of trading. Markets in the Far East were generally up. The Hang Seng was up .84%, the NIKKEI in Japan was up .43%, and the broader Chinese index was up 2.06%. In Europe, the FTSE in London was up .3% and the DAX in Germany was up .03%.
In currencies, the dollar is mixed. It's up by .57% against the Euro, up .56% against the British Pound but down 1.16% against the Japanese Yen.
The Dow along with the other two indices are about even so far this morning after about a half hour of trading. Markets in the Far East were generally up. The Hang Seng was up .84%, the NIKKEI in Japan was up .43%, and the broader Chinese index was up 2.06%. In Europe, the FTSE in London was up .3% and the DAX in Germany was up .03%.
In currencies, the dollar is mixed. It's up by .57% against the Euro, up .56% against the British Pound but down 1.16% against the Japanese Yen.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wade Rathke Sets the Record Straight
This article had a rather startling observation by former Chief Organizer Wade Rathke about ACORN, the organization he lead for nearly four decades.
I was surprised by this statement because when I spoke with Rathke he made a point not to second guess or make too many statements that disparaged his former group. (he was however critical in regards to the firing of his common law wife Beth Butler but in general stayed away from criticism)
I emailed Rathke and he told me that he was essentially quoted out of context. Rathke said that he was simply quoting from
In fact, ACORN did file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Congress' cutting off funds to them. In that lawsuit, according to Rathke, it was ACORN's position that the organization wouldn't survive for another year. Rathke didn't mean to suggest that he believed this.
In fact, he also told me that he told the reporter that he hoped that this wouldn't happen, something the reporter, Chris Conley, didn't include in the piece. This is a small point however Rathke has been careful in his statements toward his former organization and this one was taken completely out of context.
I finished the piece late and haven't had a chance to speak with the reporter. I'll update if we connect.
The scandal-plagued grassroots group ACORN may not survive another year,
its longtime leader said Monday.
Wade Rathke, who began the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now in 1970 and stepped down last year, spoke at the University of
Memphis.
ACORN became a punching bag for conservatives after allegations of voter
registration irregularities surfaced last year, spawning investigations in
several states.
Then came a video recording showing ACORN workers in Baltimore giving
advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp.
I was surprised by this statement because when I spoke with Rathke he made a point not to second guess or make too many statements that disparaged his former group. (he was however critical in regards to the firing of his common law wife Beth Butler but in general stayed away from criticism)
I emailed Rathke and he told me that he was essentially quoted out of context. Rathke said that he was simply quoting from
ACORN's lawsuit 10 days ago on defunding. Nothing more.
In fact, ACORN did file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Congress' cutting off funds to them. In that lawsuit, according to Rathke, it was ACORN's position that the organization wouldn't survive for another year. Rathke didn't mean to suggest that he believed this.
In fact, he also told me that he told the reporter that he hoped that this wouldn't happen, something the reporter, Chris Conley, didn't include in the piece. This is a small point however Rathke has been careful in his statements toward his former organization and this one was taken completely out of context.
I finished the piece late and haven't had a chance to speak with the reporter. I'll update if we connect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
