House Republicans said Friday that they are planning to push a bill to force a decision on the pipeline and strip the President's authority to make that decision. Worse, they will attach this poison pill to the President's payroll-tax and unemployment benefit extension package -- considered a must-pass piece of legislation that contains crucial help for our long-term unemployed.
Tell Leaders Reid and Pelosi: No back room deals on Keystone XL
It's one of the Republicans' most brazen moves to shill for oil companies at the expense of the rest of us. And Senate Majority Leader Reid and House Minority Leader Pelosi need to know that they can't throw the fight against Keystone XL under the bus as they work to find a way to pass the president's payroll-tax and unemployment benefit extension package.
According to Politico's reporting of the closed-door meeting of House Republicans:
Speaker John Boehner referred to the package he's putting forward as turning "chicken-sh-- into chicken salad," according to people who attended the meeting in the Capitol basement.
Translation: He's going to pass President Barack Obama's preferred tax cut, but he wants some skin from Democrats for it.
That skin is the Keystone XL pipeline. The House bill would take Keystone XL decision making authority away from the President and State Department and force the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to make a decision in 30 days, substantially restricting FERC's discretion to reject the project in the process.2
The current review process by the State Department has been restarted to evaluate a new route in Nebraska, and unlike FERC, will notably consider the climate change impacts of the project, an area that wasn't taken into account in the State Department's initial sham process.
Tell Leaders Reid and Pelosi: Don't compromise on the Republicans' Keystone XL end run.
The House's push comes on the heels of a similar, but less drastic, bill by Republicans in the Senate, which would force a decision though it doesn't remove the President's authority.
Republican hostage taking has become standard practice when it comes to legislation to provide assistance to the most needy among us. It doesn't always work, but the President considers the payroll-tax and unemployment benefits extension to be central to his jobs bill, so unless Leaders Reid and Pelosi take a stand and refuse to cut a deal that includes fast tracking Keystone XL, this could make it into bill and become law.
After everything we've fought for, we need to push back hard to make sure Democrats in Congress don't cave in and allow Republicans to force Keystone XL through the back door.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Canada is the only country in the world saying it won’t honor Kyoto!!!
Canada, the country furthest from meeting its commitment to cut carbon emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
The country’s greenhouse-gas emissions are almost a third higher than 1990 levels, and it has a 6 percent CO2 reduction target for the end of 2012. If it couldn’t meet its goal, Canada would have to buy carbon credits, under the rules of the legally binding treaty.
Canada, which has the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves, would be the first of 191 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol to annul its emission-reduction obligations. While Environment Minister Peter Kent declined to confirm Nov. 28 that Canada is preparing to pull out of Kyoto, which may ease the burden for oil-sands producers and coal-burning utilities, he said the government wouldn’t make further commitments to it.
“Canada is the only country in the world saying it won’t honor Kyoto,” said Keith Stewart, an energy and climate policy analyst for Greenpeace in Toronto. Under a previous Liberal government, Canada was one of the first countries to sign Kyoto in 1998. The current Conservative government made a non-binding commitment at 2009 United Nations talks in Copenhagen to reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels, in line with a pledge by the U.S., its biggest trading partner.
The country’s greenhouse-gas emissions are almost a third higher than 1990 levels, and it has a 6 percent CO2 reduction target for the end of 2012. If it couldn’t meet its goal, Canada would have to buy carbon credits, under the rules of the legally binding treaty.
Canada, which has the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves, would be the first of 191 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol to annul its emission-reduction obligations. While Environment Minister Peter Kent declined to confirm Nov. 28 that Canada is preparing to pull out of Kyoto, which may ease the burden for oil-sands producers and coal-burning utilities, he said the government wouldn’t make further commitments to it.
“Canada is the only country in the world saying it won’t honor Kyoto,” said Keith Stewart, an energy and climate policy analyst for Greenpeace in Toronto. Under a previous Liberal government, Canada was one of the first countries to sign Kyoto in 1998. The current Conservative government made a non-binding commitment at 2009 United Nations talks in Copenhagen to reduce emissions by 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels, in line with a pledge by the U.S., its biggest trading partner.
Friday, December 2, 2011
We wish you a Merry Christmas and are sorry you are hungry...Facts of Child Hunger in America that Rick Perry should study if he wants to be President
•Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America, over 3 million of which are ages 5 and under.
•According to the USDA, over 16 million children lived in food insecure (low food security and very low food security) households in 2010.
•20% or more of the child population in 40 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2009. The District of Columbia (32.3%) and Oregon (29.2%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.
•In 2009, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are the District of Columbia, Oregon, Arizona, Arkansas, & Texas. iii
•In 2009, the top five states with the lowest rate of food insecure children under 18 are North Dakota, New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, & Massachusetts. iii
•Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children. 62 percent of client households with children under the age of 18 reported participating in the National School Lunch Program, but only 14 percent reported having a child participate in a summer feeding program that provides free food when school is out.i
•54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).i
•32 percent of pantries, 42 percent of kitchens, and 18 percent of shelters in the Feeding America network reported "many more children in the summer" being served by their programs.i
•In 2010, 16.4 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.
•Research indicates that hungry children have do more poorly in school and have lower academic achievement because they are not well prepared for school and cannot concentrate.
•In fiscal year 2009, 48 percent of all SNAP participants were children
•During the 2010 federal fiscal year, 20.6 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, just 2.3 million of these same income-eligible children participated in the Summer Food Service Program that same year.
•According to the USDA, over 16 million children lived in food insecure (low food security and very low food security) households in 2010.
•20% or more of the child population in 40 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2009. The District of Columbia (32.3%) and Oregon (29.2%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.
•In 2009, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are the District of Columbia, Oregon, Arizona, Arkansas, & Texas. iii
•In 2009, the top five states with the lowest rate of food insecure children under 18 are North Dakota, New Hampshire, Virginia, Maryland, & Massachusetts. iii
•Proper nutrition is vital to the growth and development of children. 62 percent of client households with children under the age of 18 reported participating in the National School Lunch Program, but only 14 percent reported having a child participate in a summer feeding program that provides free food when school is out.i
•54 percent of client households with children under the age of 3 participated in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).i
•32 percent of pantries, 42 percent of kitchens, and 18 percent of shelters in the Feeding America network reported "many more children in the summer" being served by their programs.i
•In 2010, 16.4 million or approximately 22 percent of children in the U.S. lived in poverty.
•Research indicates that hungry children have do more poorly in school and have lower academic achievement because they are not well prepared for school and cannot concentrate.
•In fiscal year 2009, 48 percent of all SNAP participants were children
•During the 2010 federal fiscal year, 20.6 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. Unfortunately, just 2.3 million of these same income-eligible children participated in the Summer Food Service Program that same year.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
And yet another Republican move for the 1% at the expense of the 99%
Republicans particularly objected to a new tax on the wealthy to cover the $110 billion in projected lost revenues from continuing the temporary tax cut.
Following the votes, President Barack Obama said in a statement, "It makes absolutely no sense to raise taxes on the middle class at a time when so many are still trying to get back on their feet." He urged Congress to come to a deal to extend the payroll tax cuts.
The White House, investment banks and some economists have warned in recent days that U.S. economic growth could suffer in 2012 if the tax cut for workers is allowed to expire.
After the Democratic legislation was defeated, the Senate promptly killed an alternative Republican plan. It too would have extended the tax cut for a year. But it did not embrace the Democrats' proposal to reduce the worker tax even further and to also cut an employer-paid payroll tax.
Republican ambivalence toward any extension of the payroll tax cut was evident in the Senate as a majority of the party's 47 senators voted against the Republican plan.
Following the votes, President Barack Obama said in a statement, "It makes absolutely no sense to raise taxes on the middle class at a time when so many are still trying to get back on their feet." He urged Congress to come to a deal to extend the payroll tax cuts.
The White House, investment banks and some economists have warned in recent days that U.S. economic growth could suffer in 2012 if the tax cut for workers is allowed to expire.
After the Democratic legislation was defeated, the Senate promptly killed an alternative Republican plan. It too would have extended the tax cut for a year. But it did not embrace the Democrats' proposal to reduce the worker tax even further and to also cut an employer-paid payroll tax.
Republican ambivalence toward any extension of the payroll tax cut was evident in the Senate as a majority of the party's 47 senators voted against the Republican plan.
If Exxon & others paid taxes; we'd have the $2 trillion to put into US infrastructure; and guess what... employment problem solved!!!
The United States is falling dramatically behind much of the world in rebuilding and expanding an overloaded and deteriorating transportation network it needs to remain competitive in the global marketplace, according to a new study by the Urban Land Institute.
Burdened with soaring deficits and with long-term transportation plans stalled in Congress, the United States has fallen behind three emerging economic competitors — Brazil, China and India, the institute said.
“Over the next five to 10 years, public concerns will grow over evident declines in the condition of infrastructure,” the report says. “At some attention-getting point after infrastructure limps along, platforms for reinvesting in America could gain significant traction and public support.”
The report is the latest in a series of studies to conclude that the nation will face dire long-term consequences if major investment in transportation revitalization is postponed.
“Infrastructure should be part of the larger conversation about ‘what do you want government to do and how do you want to pay for it?’ ” said Jay Zukerman of Ernst & Young, which conducted the institute’s study.
The report lends global perspective to an issue addressed last fall by a panel of 80 experts led by former transportation secretaries Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner. That group concluded that as much as $262 billion a year must be spent on U.S. highways, rail networks and air transportation systems.
Congress has failed to approve the two major bills that allow for long-term funding and planning for aviation and transportation. The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating under a funding bill that expired in 2007 and has been extended 18 times. The surface transportation act, which provides the balance of federal transportation funding, expired in 2009 and has been extended seven times.
As Congress debates how much should be spent and where to find the money, China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.
The United States, the institute report concludes, needs to invest $2 trillion to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems and dams that are reaching the end of their planned life cycles.
The report says the desire of Congress to curtail spending will push costs onto “budget-busted” state and local governments. It points to highways and water treatment plants, built with federal funds 40 to 50 years ago, that will become financial burdens to local governments as the time comes for replacement.
“We’re seeing less federal support and less local revenues because of unemployment,” said Maureen McAvey, executive vice president of the institute, a non-profit group that analyzes policies and programs. “Some of the ambitions some growing cities had just a few years about are being cut back or put on hold.”
Burdened with soaring deficits and with long-term transportation plans stalled in Congress, the United States has fallen behind three emerging economic competitors — Brazil, China and India, the institute said.
“Over the next five to 10 years, public concerns will grow over evident declines in the condition of infrastructure,” the report says. “At some attention-getting point after infrastructure limps along, platforms for reinvesting in America could gain significant traction and public support.”
The report is the latest in a series of studies to conclude that the nation will face dire long-term consequences if major investment in transportation revitalization is postponed.
“Infrastructure should be part of the larger conversation about ‘what do you want government to do and how do you want to pay for it?’ ” said Jay Zukerman of Ernst & Young, which conducted the institute’s study.
The report lends global perspective to an issue addressed last fall by a panel of 80 experts led by former transportation secretaries Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner. That group concluded that as much as $262 billion a year must be spent on U.S. highways, rail networks and air transportation systems.
Congress has failed to approve the two major bills that allow for long-term funding and planning for aviation and transportation. The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating under a funding bill that expired in 2007 and has been extended 18 times. The surface transportation act, which provides the balance of federal transportation funding, expired in 2009 and has been extended seven times.
As Congress debates how much should be spent and where to find the money, China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.
The United States, the institute report concludes, needs to invest $2 trillion to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems and dams that are reaching the end of their planned life cycles.
The report says the desire of Congress to curtail spending will push costs onto “budget-busted” state and local governments. It points to highways and water treatment plants, built with federal funds 40 to 50 years ago, that will become financial burdens to local governments as the time comes for replacement.
“We’re seeing less federal support and less local revenues because of unemployment,” said Maureen McAvey, executive vice president of the institute, a non-profit group that analyzes policies and programs. “Some of the ambitions some growing cities had just a few years about are being cut back or put on hold.”
If he acts like a Lobbyist, smells like a Lobbyist then he would be Lobbyist Newt Gingrich for President!!! (yet another very bad idea)
Newt Gingrich in the eight years since he started his health care consultancy, has made millions of dollars while helping companies promote their services and gain access to state and federal officials.
In a variety of instances, documents and interviews show, Mr. Gingrich arranged meetings between executives and officials, and salted his presentations to lawmakers with pitches for his clients, who pay as much as $200,000 a year to belong to his Center for Health Transformation.
When the center sponsored a “health transformation summit” at the Florida State Capitol in March 2006, lawmakers who attended Mr. Gingrich’s keynote speech inside the House chamber received a booklet promoting not just ideas but also the specific services of two dozen of his clients. Executives from some of those companies sat on panels for discussions that lawmakers were encouraged to attend after Mr. Gingrich’s address.
Mr. Gingrich put his influence to work on behalf of clients with a considerable stake in government policy. Even if he does not appear to have been negotiating legislative language, he and his staff did many of the same things that registered lobbyists do.
The center’s own records — kept in a restricted section of its Web site, but found by The New York Times in an unsecured archived version of the site — contain several previously unreported examples.
Two years before the Florida “summit,” Mr. Gingrich made a presentation to Republican lawmakers in Georgia, promoting the work of his member companies by citing specific benefits if they were hired. For example: “VitalSpring could save the State Employee Program over $20 million a year.”
Minutes of a members-only conference call from March 2004 said the center had “arranged joint meetings” for members to present their work on electronic health records to top federal officials, noting that Mr. Gingrich “reported very positive feedback overall from these meetings.”
He also pressed for passage of a federal bill to increase the use of electronic health records, collaborating with one of its co-sponsors, Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, both Democrats. After appearing at a press briefing on the issue with Mrs. Clinton in 2005, he stated flatly on Fox News: “We’re launching a bill.”
A PowerPoint presentation for prospective members advertised its “contacts at the highest levels” of federal and state government. Paying $200,000 a year for the top-tier membership, it said, “increases your channels of input to decision makers” and grants “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government.”
As his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has gained traction in recent weeks, Mr. Gingrich has said he expects increased scrutiny of his business activities since leaving Congress in 1999. Those activities, which primarily involve the Center for Health Transformation and his original consulting firm, the Gingrich Group, have made him wealthy. The consultancy and center earned a combined $55 million over the last 10 years, according to a Gingrich Group representative.
From the moment he entered private life, Mr. Gingrich seemed determined to avoid being tagged as a lobbyist, which can be a kiss of death for anyone contemplating a presidential run.
A Congressional staff member, who requested anonymity, said Mr. Gingrich had frequently cited the work of companies he identified as “members” of his center. But the staff member said it was not initially clear to him that they were paying the former House speaker. “It was a year before I even realized that the Center for Health Transformation was even a for-profit company, because it didn’t sound like one,” he said.
In a variety of instances, documents and interviews show, Mr. Gingrich arranged meetings between executives and officials, and salted his presentations to lawmakers with pitches for his clients, who pay as much as $200,000 a year to belong to his Center for Health Transformation.
When the center sponsored a “health transformation summit” at the Florida State Capitol in March 2006, lawmakers who attended Mr. Gingrich’s keynote speech inside the House chamber received a booklet promoting not just ideas but also the specific services of two dozen of his clients. Executives from some of those companies sat on panels for discussions that lawmakers were encouraged to attend after Mr. Gingrich’s address.
Mr. Gingrich put his influence to work on behalf of clients with a considerable stake in government policy. Even if he does not appear to have been negotiating legislative language, he and his staff did many of the same things that registered lobbyists do.
The center’s own records — kept in a restricted section of its Web site, but found by The New York Times in an unsecured archived version of the site — contain several previously unreported examples.
Two years before the Florida “summit,” Mr. Gingrich made a presentation to Republican lawmakers in Georgia, promoting the work of his member companies by citing specific benefits if they were hired. For example: “VitalSpring could save the State Employee Program over $20 million a year.”
Minutes of a members-only conference call from March 2004 said the center had “arranged joint meetings” for members to present their work on electronic health records to top federal officials, noting that Mr. Gingrich “reported very positive feedback overall from these meetings.”
He also pressed for passage of a federal bill to increase the use of electronic health records, collaborating with one of its co-sponsors, Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, both Democrats. After appearing at a press briefing on the issue with Mrs. Clinton in 2005, he stated flatly on Fox News: “We’re launching a bill.”
A PowerPoint presentation for prospective members advertised its “contacts at the highest levels” of federal and state government. Paying $200,000 a year for the top-tier membership, it said, “increases your channels of input to decision makers” and grants “access to top transformational leadership across industry and government.”
As his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has gained traction in recent weeks, Mr. Gingrich has said he expects increased scrutiny of his business activities since leaving Congress in 1999. Those activities, which primarily involve the Center for Health Transformation and his original consulting firm, the Gingrich Group, have made him wealthy. The consultancy and center earned a combined $55 million over the last 10 years, according to a Gingrich Group representative.
From the moment he entered private life, Mr. Gingrich seemed determined to avoid being tagged as a lobbyist, which can be a kiss of death for anyone contemplating a presidential run.
A Congressional staff member, who requested anonymity, said Mr. Gingrich had frequently cited the work of companies he identified as “members” of his center. But the staff member said it was not initially clear to him that they were paying the former House speaker. “It was a year before I even realized that the Center for Health Transformation was even a for-profit company, because it didn’t sound like one,” he said.
Death & Taxes are assured for the 99% but not so for the 1%
With more than $100 billion in annual revenues and nearly $15 billion in operating profits, Verizon is a large and prosperous company. Yet, between 2008 and 2010, the company used a variety of tax avoidance techniques to receive $951 million in rebates from the federal government -- an effective tax rate of -2.9%. At the state level, Verizon paid just 2.6% in taxes compared to a 6.8% state average.
All of this is unsurprising from a company whose five highest executives took home $258 million in salary and benefits over the last four years. Without a doubt, Verizon represents not just the 1%, but the top one-tenth of 1% of the country. And they are shifting their tax bill to the 99%.
And while Verizon was becoming one of America's biggest tax dodgers, Verizon and Verizon Wireless were also seeking to cut benefits for its workers. The company is pushing a new contract that would eliminate sick days for workers hurt on the job, cut health coverage promised to retirees and force workers to pay thousands per year in healthcare costs -- on top of the fair share in taxes they already pay.
Verizon's antics are just another illustration of the destructive power of corporate greed.
All of this is unsurprising from a company whose five highest executives took home $258 million in salary and benefits over the last four years. Without a doubt, Verizon represents not just the 1%, but the top one-tenth of 1% of the country. And they are shifting their tax bill to the 99%.
And while Verizon was becoming one of America's biggest tax dodgers, Verizon and Verizon Wireless were also seeking to cut benefits for its workers. The company is pushing a new contract that would eliminate sick days for workers hurt on the job, cut health coverage promised to retirees and force workers to pay thousands per year in healthcare costs -- on top of the fair share in taxes they already pay.
Verizon's antics are just another illustration of the destructive power of corporate greed.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
the 99% are beginning to think for themselves.........
A 103-year-old woman and her 83-year-old daughter got a last-minute eviction reprieve when sheriff's deputies and movers decided they couldn’t uproot the women from their longtime Atlanta home.
Fulton County Sheriff’s deputies and a moving company hired by the bank showed up at Vita Lee’s Penelope Road home on Tuesday, according to a report on WSBTV.com. Deutsche Bank apparently holds the mortgage that is being serviced locally by Chase, the station reported. The planned eviction was reportedly the latest move in a legal battle that dates back years.
But when the men saw the frail woman, they opted to leave instead of carry through with the forced move, WSBTV.com reported.
The reprieve comes just three weeks shy of Lee’s 104th-birthday. Lee said she just wants to live out her last days in the place she has called home for more than half a century. "I love it. It’s a mansion," she said about the modest house.
Still, the stress of the situation was apparently too much for Lee’s daughter, who reportedly was rushed to the hospital. Lee said she hopes now the bank will leave her alone.
Fulton County Sheriff’s deputies and a moving company hired by the bank showed up at Vita Lee’s Penelope Road home on Tuesday, according to a report on WSBTV.com. Deutsche Bank apparently holds the mortgage that is being serviced locally by Chase, the station reported. The planned eviction was reportedly the latest move in a legal battle that dates back years.
But when the men saw the frail woman, they opted to leave instead of carry through with the forced move, WSBTV.com reported.
The reprieve comes just three weeks shy of Lee’s 104th-birthday. Lee said she just wants to live out her last days in the place she has called home for more than half a century. "I love it. It’s a mansion," she said about the modest house.
Still, the stress of the situation was apparently too much for Lee’s daughter, who reportedly was rushed to the hospital. Lee said she hopes now the bank will leave her alone.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
UAE President pardons bloggers; but misses a golden opportunity to lead his society forward.
The United Arab Emirates president on Monday pardoned five activists sentenced a day earlier to 2 to 3 years in prison on charges of publicly insulting the country's rulers and disrupting public order, one of their lawyers said, relieving them of multiyear prison terms and closing a case controversial in the oil-rich Gulf state.
The U.A.E. government said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan ordered the release of the prisoners as part of a wider pardon issued on Sunday on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the U.A.E. Defense lawyers and the activists' families had anticipated the amnesty ahead of U.A.E. national day on Friday, when the president has in the past pardoned some prisoners.
"I am very happy and glad," said Mohammed al-Roken, an attorney for two of the activists. "I hope this is a page that has been turned in the history of the U.A.E., and they can continue to serve their country."
Civil-society and human-rights groups criticized the case—an unusual trial in a state-security court of well-respected Emirati writers, professors, and bloggers—saying the accused were unable to present a proper defense and arguing that the trial served principally as a warning against political expression, at a time when protests are sweeping the wider Middle East region. Within the U.A.E., the trial divided opinions on political participation and freedom of expression. Some of the activists and their lawyers complained of harassment and threats.
Where Freedom of Speech is denied; the seeds of revolution are sown...
The U.A.E. government said Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan ordered the release of the prisoners as part of a wider pardon issued on Sunday on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the U.A.E. Defense lawyers and the activists' families had anticipated the amnesty ahead of U.A.E. national day on Friday, when the president has in the past pardoned some prisoners.
"I am very happy and glad," said Mohammed al-Roken, an attorney for two of the activists. "I hope this is a page that has been turned in the history of the U.A.E., and they can continue to serve their country."
Civil-society and human-rights groups criticized the case—an unusual trial in a state-security court of well-respected Emirati writers, professors, and bloggers—saying the accused were unable to present a proper defense and arguing that the trial served principally as a warning against political expression, at a time when protests are sweeping the wider Middle East region. Within the U.A.E., the trial divided opinions on political participation and freedom of expression. Some of the activists and their lawyers complained of harassment and threats.
Where Freedom of Speech is denied; the seeds of revolution are sown...
We are all amazed at the people society trusts as stewards; they seem to be devode of judgment, ethics and accountability!!!
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stepped off the elevator into the Third Avenue offices of hedge fund Eton Park Capital Management LP in Manhattan. It was July 21, 2008, and market fears were mounting. Four months earlier, Bear Stearns Cos. had sold itself for just $10 a share to JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)
Now, amid tumbling home prices and near-record foreclosures, attention was focused on a new source of contagion: Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac, which together had more than $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and other debt outstanding, Bloomberg Markets reports in its January issue.
Paulson had been pushing a plan in Congress to open lines of credit to the two struggling firms and to grant authority for the Treasury Department to buy equity in them. Yet he had told reporters on July 13 that the firms must remain shareholder owned and had testified at a Senate hearing two days later that giving the government new power to intervene made actual intervention improbable.
“If you have a bazooka, and people know you have it, you’re not likely to take it out,” he said.
On the morning of July 21, before the Eton Park meeting, Paulson had spoken to New York Times reporters and editors, according to his Treasury Department schedule. A Times article the next day said the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency were inspecting Fannie and Freddie’s books and cited Paulson as saying he expected their examination would give a signal of confidence to the markets.
At the Eton Park meeting, he sent a different message, according to a fund manager who attended. Over sandwiches and pasta salad, he delivered that information to a group of men capable of profiting from any disclosure.
Around the conference room table were a dozen or so hedge- fund managers and other Wall Street executives -- at least five of them alumni of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), of which Paulson was chief executive officer and chairman from 1999 to 2006. In addition to Eton Park founder Eric Mindich, they included such boldface names as Lone Pine Capital LLC founder Stephen Mandel, Dinakar Singh of TPG-Axon Capital Management LP and Daniel Och of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC.
After a perfunctory discussion of the market turmoil, the fund manager says, the discussion turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson said he had erred by not punishing Bear Stearns shareholders more severely. The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” -- a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets.
Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out. So too would the various classes of preferred stock, he said.
The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information -- to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information.
Now, amid tumbling home prices and near-record foreclosures, attention was focused on a new source of contagion: Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac, which together had more than $5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities and other debt outstanding, Bloomberg Markets reports in its January issue.
Paulson had been pushing a plan in Congress to open lines of credit to the two struggling firms and to grant authority for the Treasury Department to buy equity in them. Yet he had told reporters on July 13 that the firms must remain shareholder owned and had testified at a Senate hearing two days later that giving the government new power to intervene made actual intervention improbable.
“If you have a bazooka, and people know you have it, you’re not likely to take it out,” he said.
On the morning of July 21, before the Eton Park meeting, Paulson had spoken to New York Times reporters and editors, according to his Treasury Department schedule. A Times article the next day said the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency were inspecting Fannie and Freddie’s books and cited Paulson as saying he expected their examination would give a signal of confidence to the markets.
At the Eton Park meeting, he sent a different message, according to a fund manager who attended. Over sandwiches and pasta salad, he delivered that information to a group of men capable of profiting from any disclosure.
Around the conference room table were a dozen or so hedge- fund managers and other Wall Street executives -- at least five of them alumni of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), of which Paulson was chief executive officer and chairman from 1999 to 2006. In addition to Eton Park founder Eric Mindich, they included such boldface names as Lone Pine Capital LLC founder Stephen Mandel, Dinakar Singh of TPG-Axon Capital Management LP and Daniel Och of Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC.
After a perfunctory discussion of the market turmoil, the fund manager says, the discussion turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Paulson said he had erred by not punishing Bear Stearns shareholders more severely. The secretary, then 62, went on to describe a possible scenario for placing Fannie and Freddie into “conservatorship” -- a government seizure designed to allow the firms to continue operations despite heavy losses in the mortgage markets.
Paulson explained that under this scenario, the common stock of the two government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, would be effectively wiped out. So too would the various classes of preferred stock, he said.
The fund manager says he was shocked that Paulson would furnish such specific information -- to his mind, leaving little doubt that the Treasury Department would carry out the plan. The managers attending the meeting were thus given a choice opportunity to trade on that information.
Monday, November 28, 2011
UAE Bloggers for Democratci Change sentenced to prison for 2-3 years
The five-month-long trial of the activists has been seen as a gauge of how the Gulf state, the world’s No. 3 oil exporter, with no tradition of organised political protest, responds to hints of political dissidence in the aftermath of the Arab Spring uprisings.
Ahmed Mansoor, a communications engineer and poet, was the main defendant, accused of running a website that gave the other defendants a venue to express anti-government views. He was sentenced to three years in jail.
“The website included insults that diminished the standing of His Highness the president and His Highness the vice president,” the state prosecutor said in October when he presented his case, without specifying the insults.
The other four – Nasser bin Ghaith, Fahad Salim Dalk, Hassan Ali al-Khamis and Ahmed Abdul Khaleq – were sentenced to two years.
The court also ordered the closure of the website. The five, who were arrested in April for urging public protest and disrupting public order, had been on trial since June.
The five have been on hunger strike for almost two weeks, lawyers and relatives said.
“Their health is deteriorating and they lost a lot of weight,” Mohammed al-Roken, one of two lawyers defending the five activists, told reporters. “But I don’t know if they will continue or not.”
One of the defendants had written an essay describing that approach as buying off citizens to avoid political reform.
Prosecutors also said in October one of the activists published a petition urging a boycott of elections in September for half of a 40-seat consultative council. Prosecutors said they had evidence the defendants incited citizens to “breach public order and stage demonstrations against the state”.
Three rights groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), accused the UAE government last week of failing to investigate what they described as a campaign of death threats, slander and intimidation against the five.
Ahmed Mansoor, a communications engineer and poet, was the main defendant, accused of running a website that gave the other defendants a venue to express anti-government views. He was sentenced to three years in jail.
“The website included insults that diminished the standing of His Highness the president and His Highness the vice president,” the state prosecutor said in October when he presented his case, without specifying the insults.
The other four – Nasser bin Ghaith, Fahad Salim Dalk, Hassan Ali al-Khamis and Ahmed Abdul Khaleq – were sentenced to two years.
The court also ordered the closure of the website. The five, who were arrested in April for urging public protest and disrupting public order, had been on trial since June.
The five have been on hunger strike for almost two weeks, lawyers and relatives said.
“Their health is deteriorating and they lost a lot of weight,” Mohammed al-Roken, one of two lawyers defending the five activists, told reporters. “But I don’t know if they will continue or not.”
One of the defendants had written an essay describing that approach as buying off citizens to avoid political reform.
Prosecutors also said in October one of the activists published a petition urging a boycott of elections in September for half of a 40-seat consultative council. Prosecutors said they had evidence the defendants incited citizens to “breach public order and stage demonstrations against the state”.
Three rights groups, including Human Rights Watch (HRW), accused the UAE government last week of failing to investigate what they described as a campaign of death threats, slander and intimidation against the five.
US Universities Sell Academic Freedom to ANY bidder....
In the 25 years Johns Hopkins University and Nanjing University have run a joint campus in China, it’s never published an academic journal. When American student Brendon Stewart tried last year, he found out why.
Intended to showcase the best work by Chinese and American students and faculty to a far-flung audience, Stewart’s journal broke the Hopkins-Nanjing Center’s rules that confine academic freedom to the classroom. Administrators prevented the journal from circulating outside campus, and a student was pressured to withdraw an article about Chinese protest movements. About 75 copies sat in a box in Stewart’s dorm room for a year.
“You think you’re going to a place that has academic freedom, and maybe in theory you do, but in reality you don’t,” said Stewart, 27, who earned a master’s degree in international studies this year from Hopkins-Nanjing and now works for an accounting firm in Beijing. “The place is run by Chinese administrators, and I don’t think the U.S. side had a lot of bargaining power to protect the interests of its students. At the end of the day, it’s a campus on Chinese soil.”
The muzzling of Stewart’s journal exposes the compromises to academic freedom that some American universities make in China. While professors and students openly discuss sensitive subjects such as the Tibetan independence movement or the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests on the Hopkins-Nanjing campus, they can’t do so in the surrounding community. Even on-campus protections only cover class discussions, not activities typical of U.S. campuses, such as showing documentary films in a student lounge.
Academic freedom “gives both students and faculty the right to express their views -- in speech, writing and through electronic communication, both on and off campus -- without fear of sanction,” Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a 2010 essay.
Limits on academic freedom are one reason Stanford University and Columbia University haven’t opened campuses in China. Columbia has a study center in Beijing, while Stanford plans to open one on the campus of Peking University next year. Such centers, which provide offices for visiting professors and host lectures and fundraisers, are easily exited, Columbia President Lee Bollinger said.
“The one thing we have to do is maintain our academic integrity, our academic independence,” Bollinger said. “There are too many examples of a strict and stern control that lead you to think that this is kind of an explosive mix.”
U.S. universities also encounter challenges to academic freedom in the Middle East. The University of Connecticut scrapped plans in 2007 to expand to Dubai amid criticism of the Emirate’s Israel policies.
NYU last year opened an Abu Dhabi campus, which enjoys the same academic freedom as the Washington Square campus, according to the university’s web site. Of course when asked if there were classes on democracy, activism, gender studies, homosexuality, judaism or atheism the University offered no comment.
Intended to showcase the best work by Chinese and American students and faculty to a far-flung audience, Stewart’s journal broke the Hopkins-Nanjing Center’s rules that confine academic freedom to the classroom. Administrators prevented the journal from circulating outside campus, and a student was pressured to withdraw an article about Chinese protest movements. About 75 copies sat in a box in Stewart’s dorm room for a year.
“You think you’re going to a place that has academic freedom, and maybe in theory you do, but in reality you don’t,” said Stewart, 27, who earned a master’s degree in international studies this year from Hopkins-Nanjing and now works for an accounting firm in Beijing. “The place is run by Chinese administrators, and I don’t think the U.S. side had a lot of bargaining power to protect the interests of its students. At the end of the day, it’s a campus on Chinese soil.”
The muzzling of Stewart’s journal exposes the compromises to academic freedom that some American universities make in China. While professors and students openly discuss sensitive subjects such as the Tibetan independence movement or the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests on the Hopkins-Nanjing campus, they can’t do so in the surrounding community. Even on-campus protections only cover class discussions, not activities typical of U.S. campuses, such as showing documentary films in a student lounge.
Academic freedom “gives both students and faculty the right to express their views -- in speech, writing and through electronic communication, both on and off campus -- without fear of sanction,” Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a 2010 essay.
Limits on academic freedom are one reason Stanford University and Columbia University haven’t opened campuses in China. Columbia has a study center in Beijing, while Stanford plans to open one on the campus of Peking University next year. Such centers, which provide offices for visiting professors and host lectures and fundraisers, are easily exited, Columbia President Lee Bollinger said.
“The one thing we have to do is maintain our academic integrity, our academic independence,” Bollinger said. “There are too many examples of a strict and stern control that lead you to think that this is kind of an explosive mix.”
U.S. universities also encounter challenges to academic freedom in the Middle East. The University of Connecticut scrapped plans in 2007 to expand to Dubai amid criticism of the Emirate’s Israel policies.
NYU last year opened an Abu Dhabi campus, which enjoys the same academic freedom as the Washington Square campus, according to the university’s web site. Of course when asked if there were classes on democracy, activism, gender studies, homosexuality, judaism or atheism the University offered no comment.
neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest = Too big fail "yes" but not too BIG to be CONVICTED!!!
A judge on Monday rejected a proposed $285 million settlement between Citigroup Inc and the top U.S. market regulator over the sale of toxic mortgage debt and ordered a trial.
In a written opinion, Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff said the proposed settlement was "neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."
The rejection was not a surprise since the judge had made clear at a November 9 hearing that he had major problems with the proposal.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Citigroup of selling a $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation, Class V Funding III, in 2007 as the housing market was beginning to collapse, and then betting against the transaction.
One Citigroup employee, director Brian Stoker, was also charged by the SEC. He is contesting those charges.
Representatives of Citigroup and the SEC could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is SEC v Citigroup Global Markets Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07387.
In a written opinion, Manhattan federal court judge Jed Rakoff said the proposed settlement was "neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."
The rejection was not a surprise since the judge had made clear at a November 9 hearing that he had major problems with the proposal.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Citigroup of selling a $1 billion mortgage-linked collateralized debt obligation, Class V Funding III, in 2007 as the housing market was beginning to collapse, and then betting against the transaction.
One Citigroup employee, director Brian Stoker, was also charged by the SEC. He is contesting those charges.
Representatives of Citigroup and the SEC could not immediately be reached for comment.
The case is SEC v Citigroup Global Markets Inc, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07387.
Kuwait on the path to freedom....
Kuwait’s Prime Minister Sheikh Nasser Al-Mohammed Al-Sabah and his Cabinet resigned today, following months of protests calling for his ouster and a change of government.
State television reported the resignation after an emergency cabinet meeting chaired by Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. It was the seventh time Sheikh Nasser’s cabinet has asked or been forced to stand down since he was appointed in 2006, and each previous time he was reappointed by the Gulf nation’s ruler. The emir accepted the resignation and asked the government to stay in place until a new one is formed, state news agency Kuna reported.
“If the same prime minister is reappointed, there will be more demonstrations in the streets which will lead to social unrest,” said Ayed Al-Manna, a political analyst at Kuwait’s Public Authority for Applied Education. “We might see something similar to what has happened in other countries.” A change of premier would be “a victory for the opposition,” he said.
The standoff has put Kuwait’s semi-democratic political system under growing strain. The country’s rulers have granted more powers to elected lawmakers than other monarchs in the six- member Gulf Cooperation Council, without satisfying opposition groups who say they are still denied a representative role in shaping policy. Their political tussles have slowed economic growth and delayed key investment projects.
State television reported the resignation after an emergency cabinet meeting chaired by Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmed Al-Jaber Al-Sabah. It was the seventh time Sheikh Nasser’s cabinet has asked or been forced to stand down since he was appointed in 2006, and each previous time he was reappointed by the Gulf nation’s ruler. The emir accepted the resignation and asked the government to stay in place until a new one is formed, state news agency Kuna reported.
“If the same prime minister is reappointed, there will be more demonstrations in the streets which will lead to social unrest,” said Ayed Al-Manna, a political analyst at Kuwait’s Public Authority for Applied Education. “We might see something similar to what has happened in other countries.” A change of premier would be “a victory for the opposition,” he said.
The standoff has put Kuwait’s semi-democratic political system under growing strain. The country’s rulers have granted more powers to elected lawmakers than other monarchs in the six- member Gulf Cooperation Council, without satisfying opposition groups who say they are still denied a representative role in shaping policy. Their political tussles have slowed economic growth and delayed key investment projects.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
It's beginning to look a lot like a year end RALLY!!!
U.S. retail sales during Thanksgiving weekend climbed 16 percent to a record as shoppers flocked to stores earlier and spent more, according to the National Retail Federation.
Sales totaled $52.4 billion, and the average shopper spent $398.62 during the holiday weekend, up from $365.34 a year earlier, the Washington-based trade group said in a statement today, citing a survey conducted by BIGresearch. More than a third of that -- an average of $150.53 -- was spent online.
Sales totaled $52.4 billion, and the average shopper spent $398.62 during the holiday weekend, up from $365.34 a year earlier, the Washington-based trade group said in a statement today, citing a survey conducted by BIGresearch. More than a third of that -- an average of $150.53 -- was spent online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)